ChristiansUnite Forums

The Meaning of "FOREKNEW" in Romans 8:29


This is from the Appendix of the book "The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented" by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas.


THE MEANING OF “FOREKNEW” IN ROMANS 8:29


"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." Romans 8:29,30

Broadly speaking there have been two general views as to the meaning and use of the word “foreknew” in Romans 8:29. One class of commentators (the Arminians) maintain that Paul is saying that God predestined to salvation those whom He foreknew would respond to His offer of grace (i.e., those whom He saw would of their own free will repent of their sins and believe the gospel). Godet, in commenting on Romans 8:29, asks the question: “In what respect did God thus foreknow them?” and answers that they were “foreknown as sure to fulfill the conditions of salvation, viz. faith; so: foreknown as His by faith.” 1 The word "foreknew” is thus understood by Arminians to mean that God knew beforehand which sinners would believe, etc., and on the basis of this knowledge He predestined them unto salvation.

The other class of commentators (the Calvinists) reject the above view on two grounds. First, because the Arminians’ interpretation is not in keeping with the meaning of Paul’s language and second, because it is out of harmony with the system of doctrine taught in the rest of the Scriptures. Calvinists contend that the passage teaches that God set His heart upon (i.e., foreknew) certain individuals; these He predestined or marked out to be saved. Notice that the text does not say that God knew SOMETHING ABOUT particular individuals (that they would do this or that), but it states that God knew the individuals THEMSELVES – those whom He knew He predestined to be made like Christ. The word “foreknew” as used here is thus understood to be equivalent to “foreloved” – those who were the objects of God’s love, He marked out for salvation.

The questions raised by the two opposing interpretations are these: Did God look down through time and see that certain individuals would believe and thus predestine them unto salvation on the basis of this foreseen faith? Or did God set His heart on certain individuals and because of His love for them predestine that they should be called and given faith in Christ by the Holy Spirit and thus be saved? In other words, is the individual’s faith the cause or the result of God’s predestination?



A. The meaning of “foreknew” in Romans 8:29

God has always possessed perfect knowledge of all creatures and of all events. There has never been a time when anything past, present, or future was not fully known to Him.* But it is not His knowledge of future events (of what people would do, etc.) which is referred to in Romans 8:29,30, for Paul clearly states that those whom He foreknew He predestined, He called, He justified, etc. Since all men are not predestined, called, and justified, it follows that all men were not foreknown by God in the sense spoken of in verse 29.


It is for this reason that the Arminians are forced to add some qualifying notion. They read into the passage some idea not contained in the language itself such as those whom He foreknew would believe etc., He predestined, called and justified. But according to the Biblical usage of the words “know,” “knew,” and “foreknew” there is not the least need to make such an addition, and since it is unnecessary, it is improper. When the Bible speaks of God knowing particular individuals, it often means that He has special regard for them, that they are the objects of His affection and concern. For example in Amos 3:2, God, speaking to Israel says,“You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” The Lord knows about all the families of the earth, but He knew Israel in a special way.* They were His chosen people whom He had set His heart upon. See Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15. Because Israel was His in a special sense He chastised them, cf. Hebrews 12:5,6.*God, speaking to Jeremiah, said, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you,” (Jeremiah 1:5). The meaning here is not that God knew about Jeremiah but that He had a special regard for the prophet before He formed him in his mother’s womb. Jesus also used the word “knew” in the sense of personal, intimate awareness. “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’ “ (Matt. 7:22,23). Our Lord cannot be understood here as saying, I knew nothing about you, for it is quite evident that He knew all too much about them – their evil character and evil works; hence, His meaning must be, I never knew you intimately nor personally, I never regarded you as the objects of my favor or love. Paul uses the word in the same way in I Corinthians 8:3, “But if one loves God, one is known by him,” and also II Timothy 2:19, “the Lord knows those who are His.” The Lord knows about all men but He only knows those “who love Him, who are called according to His purpose” (Rom 8:28) – those who are His!


Murray’s argument in favor of this meaning of “foreknew” is very good.*“It should be observed that the text says ‘whom He foreknew’; whom is the object of the verb and there is no qualifying addition.* This, of itself, shows that, unless there is some other compelling reason, the expression ‘whom he foreknew’ contains within itself the differentiation which is presupposed. If the apostle had in mind some ‘qualifying adjunct’ it would have been simple to supply it. Since he adds none we are forced to inquire if the actual terms he uses can express the differentiation implied. The usage of Scripture provides an affirmative answer. Although the term ‘foreknew’ is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word ‘know’ in the usage of Scripture; ‘foreknow’ merely adds the thought of ‘beforehand’ to the word ‘know’. Many times in Scripture ‘know’ has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with ‘love’, to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt 7:23; I Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; II Tim. 2:19; I John 3:1).* There is no reason why this import of the word ‘know’ should not be applied to ‘foreknow’ in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present (cf. 11:5,6). When this import is appreciated, then there is no reason for adding any qualifying notion and ‘whom He foreknew’ is seen to contain within itself the differentiating element required. It means ‘whom he set regard upon’ or ‘whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight’ and is virtually equivalent to ‘whom he foreloved’. This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain – it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is He who glorifies. Foresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it….It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is a sovereign distinguishing love.” 2


Hodge observes that “as to know is often to approve and love, it may express the idea of peculiar affection in this case; or it may mean to select or determine upon….The usage of the word is favourable to either modification of this general idea of preferring. ‘The people which he foreknew,’ i.e., loved or selected, Rom. 11:2; ‘Who verily was foreordained (Gr. foreknown), i.e., fixed upon, chosen before the foundation of the world.’ I Peter 1:20; II Tim. 2:19; John 10:14,15; see also Acts 2:23; I Peter 1:2. The idea, therefore, obviously is, that those whom God peculiarly loved, and by thus loving, distinguished or selected from the rest of mankind; or to express both ideas in one word, those whom he elected he predestined, etc.” 3


Although God knew about all men before the world began, He did not know all men in the sense that the Bible sometimes uses the word “know,” i.e., with intimate personal awareness and love. It is in this latter sense that God** foreknew* those whom He predestined, called, and justified, as outlined in Romans 8:29,30!

Continued...

B. Romans 8:29 does not refer to the foresight of faith, good works, etc.


As was pointed out above, it is unnecessary and therefore indefensible to add any qualifying notion such as faith to the verb foreknew in Romans 8:29. The Arminians make this addition, not because the language requires it, but because their theological system requires it – they do it to escape the doctrines of unconditional predestination and election. They read the notion of foreseen faith into the verse and then appeal to it in an effort to prove that predestination was based on foreseen events. Thus particular individuals are said to be saved, not because God willed that they should be saved (for He willed the salvation of everyone) but because they themselves willed to be saved. Hence salvation is make to depend ultimately on the individual’s will, not on the sovereign will of Almighty God – faith is understood to be man’s gift to God, not God’s gift to man.


Haldane, comparing Scripture with Scripture, clearly shows that the foreknowledge mentioned in Romans 8:29 cannot have reference to the foreseen faith, good works, or the sinner’s response to God’s call. “Faith cannot be the cause of foreknowledge, because foreknowledge is before predestination, and faith is the effect of predestination. ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed,’ Acts 13:48.* Neither can it be meant of the foreknowledge of good works, because these are the effects of predestination. ‘We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works; which God hath before ordained (or before prepared) that we should walk in them;’ Eph. 2:10. Neither can it be meant of foreknowledge of our concurrence with the external call, because our effectual calling depends not upon that concurrence, but upon God’s purpose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2 Tim. 1:9. By this foreknowledge, then, is meant, as has been observed, the love of God towards those whom he predestinates to be saved through Jesus Christ. All the called of God are foreknown by Him, - that is, they are the objects of His eternal love, and their calling comes from this free love. ‘I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn thee,’ Jer. 31:3.” 4


Murray, in rejecting the view that “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 refers to the foresight of faith, is certainly correct in stating that “It needs to be emphasized that the rejection of this interpretation is not dictated by a predestinarian interest. Even if it were granted that ‘foreknew’ means foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith;* he foresees all that comes to pass.* The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates (cf. John 3:3-8; 6:44;45,65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Pet. 1:2). Hence his eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom he foresees as believing, and we are thrown back upon the differentiation which proceeds from God’s own eternal and sovereign election to faith and its consequents. The interest, therefore, is simply one of interpretation as it should be applied to this passage.* On exegetical grounds we shall have to reject the view that ‘foreknew’ refers to the foresight of faith.” 5



1 Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p 325.* Italics are his.

2 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. I, pp. 316-318.* Italics are his.

3 Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 283, 284. Italics are his.

4 Robert Haldane, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, p. 397.

5 Murray, Romans, Vol. I, p. 316.


In Christ

Hello Dave,

I will simply state plainly that the vast majority of Christians completely disagree, and I would be one of them. I won't debate or argue the matter with you, rather I will simply state that Almighty God knew all things before the foundation of the world, including the number of hairs on your head and the exact moment that any sparrow would fall from the sky.

Almighty God does wish that all men would love HIM and accept JESUS CHRIST as their personal LORD and SAVIOUR. It is obvious that HIM being the CREATOR, HE could have made all men robots to believe whatever HE wanted them to believe, but that isn't what HE did. Instead, HE gave all men FREE WILL to either love HIM or ignore HIM and either accept or reject JESUS CHRIST as personal LORD and SAVIOUR.

The Holy Bible clearly states that JESUS CHRIST died on the Cross for ALL MEN, not just some. Had GOD created robots as you suggest, there would have been no need for JESUS CHRIST to die on the Cross, and there would be no need of pastors, evangelists, and Christians to witness. People would simply be born already programmed by the CREATOR. That obviously didn't happen and hasn't happened. The Love, Grace, and GIFT of GOD is extended to all men. All men will either accept or reject that Love, Grace, and GIFT of JESUS CHRIST as LORD and SAVIOUR.

The above and numerous plain and simple portions of the Holy Bible is the reason why the vast majority of Christians, theologians, and Bible scholars completely reject the theory you have proposed here.

Love In Christ,
Tom

John 3:11 NASB  "Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.

John 3:12 NASB  "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

John 3:13 NASB  "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

John 3:14 NASB  "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

John 3:15 NASB  so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

John 3:16 NASB  "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:17 NASB  "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

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

Hello Dave, I also have to reject your theory. But theories come from man, not God. John 9:39 Then Jesus said, I came into this world for judgment [as a Separator, in order that there may be separation between those who believe on Me and those who reject Me], to make the sightless see and to make those who see become blind.

Resting in the hands, of the Lord.
Bob

Psalm 111:4 He has made His wonderful works to be remembered; the Lord is gracious, merciful, and full of loving compassion.

Hi Blackeyedpeas

I wasn't sure where to post this thread. I don't care for arguing either, but we should be able to discuss this as rational adults, no?


I would reply that the gate that leads to life is narrow, and the one that leads to damnation is wide. If numbers of people equaled truth, then Muslim's would be right. God does know the numbers of hairs on our head, but it's not just that He knows how many, He numbered them.


I agree.


Did you know that Paul addressed these exact same robot questions in Romans 9? See the bottom of this post.


Your idea of free will is nowhere to be found in scripture, the Bible teaches that we are only free when we are in Christ. To not be in Christ is to be enslaved, blind etc, i.e., not free.


If Christ died for all then all are saved. I'm not sure why you are saying that I claimed that all men are robots. Again, see Romans 9 below.

What did Jesus accomplish on the cross?

"You must decide how effective the Cross was meant to be. Where do you want to limit the Cross - in its scope and so be able to say that it was 100% successful in its power or do you want to severely limit its success and confess that there are men now in hell suffering for sins for which Christ has already suffered."

God's Word says to test all things. Would you be willing to do that? I can start a post on Mans freedom and God's sovereignty. I'm always willing to learn, how about you? Based on your argument against the original post, I don't think that you guys understand what it is you are arguing against.

In Christ
Dave

Luke 19:41-42 Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it (desire), Saying, "If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.(eternal purpose)

"There is a distinction between God's desire and His eternal saving purpose, which must transcend His desires. God does not want men to sin. He hates sin with all His being (Psalm 5:4, Psalm 45:7); thus, He hates it's consequences--eternal wickedness in hell. God does not want people to remain wicked forever in eternal remorse and hatred of of Himself. Yet, God, for His own glory, and to manifest the glory in wrath, chose to endure "vessels...prepared for destruction" for the supreme fulfillment of His will (Romans 9:22). In His eternal purpose, He chose to elect out of the world (John 17:6) and passed over the rest, leaving them to the consequences of their sin, unbelief, and rejection of Christ (cf. Romans 1:18-32). Ultimately, God's choices are determined by His sovereign, eternal purpose, not His desire."(JMSB)

------------------------------------------------ROMANS 9----------------------------------------------------------
II. "BUT ELECTION ISN'T FAIR!"

Some years ago I was at a weekend retreat with a group of university students. During a discussion period someone raised the subject of predestination and election. One girl asked, "Where does the Bible clearly teach that God sovereignly chooses some people to be saved?" I asked her to read Romans nine out loud. She paused a second with a surprised look on her face as she slowly read "before they were born or had done good or evil." When she got to 9:13 and read, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated," she stopped and said, "But that's not fair." I asked her to read the next verse. The King James Version says, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." She had a modern speech translation and it said, "You will object and say, 'but that's not fair.'" The surprised girl blurted out, "That's what I just said."

Now listen very carefully. If you object to election on the grounds that you think it is unfair, you are using an objection that has already been used and answered in the Scripture. The moment you say, "Election is unfair," you are admitting that you disagree with Paul's teaching in Romans 9:11-13 because that is the very objection he is presupposing his opponents will make. In his answer Paul does not back up or soften his statement. He declares that God has every right to show mercy to whomever he chooses.

The young lady continued to read Romans nine. She read verse 18, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." She literally gasped, "Then man cannot be held responsible. He is only a robot." Again I asked her to read the next verse. The King James says, "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" The young lady's modern speech translation read, "You will say to me, 'Then man cannot be held responsible. He is only a robot.'" The poor girl said, "I did it again!" Let me repeat what I just said. If you object to election on the grounds that you think it makes man a robot, you are using an objection that has already been used and answered in the Scripture. The moment you say, "Election means man cannot be held responsible," you are admitting that you disagree with Paul's teaching in Romans 9:18. Again, we see that Paul did not soften his statement. He declares that the Potter has the sovereign right to fashion, as he chooses, the lump of clay which is sinful man.

Both of the above objections forget the fall of Adam and the doctrine of depravity. They treat sinners as if God created them sinful instead of remembering that we all chose, in Adam, to sin...."

http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace/reisingerelection.html
 

Dave,

I won't argue this with you. I'll simply say:


Dave, I don't have ANY fear of witnessing to someone on the "REJECT" list because there is NO "REJECT" list. I don't debate this topic because it simply confuses the lost and the babes in CHRIST. EVERYTHING we need to know about "PREDESTINATION" is very simple:


The perfect sacrifice of JESUS CHRIST on the CROSS was for ALL men. It is, in FACT, a GIFT to all men who will receive it from a GOD of Love and GRACE. GOD will not force any man or woman to accept JESUS CHRIST as LORD and SAVIOUR, and GOD will NOT REJECT any man or woman who wishes to accept JESUS CHRIST as LORD and SAVIOUR. It's really just as simple as this, and that's why children are able to understand GOD'S plan of Salvation.


Love In Christ,
Tom

Matthew 11:28-30 NASB  "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.  "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.  "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Galatians 4:4-6 NASB  But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

Revelation 3:20 NASB  'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

Amen Brother Tom!

Tom,

I will simply trust that those who love the truth will seek it, honestly, and those who don't, won't.

Tom, we are all capable of willfully deceiving ourselves and then convincing ourselves that we have been fair in our search of the truth. Half the battle in finding the truth is overcomming ourselves. We need to recognise this shortcoming about ourselves (the flesh) and do everything within our power to be as fair and balanced in our search for the truth as we possibly can.

I understand your wanting to protect those who are young in Christ and I know your motives are good, Tom, but I do think that you are wrong not to at least entertain the possibility that you may be wrong. I see this a lot in these forums. Well meaning people come up with excuse after excuse in why they will avoid something that they don't understand, and assuming the worse, they willfully refuse to look past the comfort zone that they have created for themselves and can only fill in the blanks, so to speak, with what is pleasing to their ears concerning their beliefs, and to anyone who challenges this comfort Zone, they will then paint them as some kind of evil. Can anyone lay claim to a love for Christ and suppress the truth? Are not Jesus Christ and the truth One and the same?

It's not a bad thing to confront the tough questions head on, even for new Christians, this is how we learn, and how we grow in Christ. Many people today belong to churches that never teach solid food, and as a result, the sheep are never fed, and many, are so far from the truth that they are not even saved. Only a faith in the truth will save. 

As a new Christian I personally benefited from asking the tough questions and seeking the answers in His Word and in prayer. There have been times that i've spent sleepless nights, exhausting every possibility that I knew of, constantly checking scripture with scripture in my mind, and only then, after I decide to set it down for a while in frustration, a month or two later, the answer is dropped right in my lap while devotional reading. For me personally, God has always wanted an effort first before He is willing to show me the truth. This is how He teaches me. I don't run from the tough questions, but have benefited greatly by confronting them. After all, isn't it God who puts the disire in our hearts to know the answers (Psalm37:4)?

I could post mountains of scripture to show that your understanding is off. I'm sure that you've seen it all before. You need to ask yourself, Tom, why you are not willing to deal with all the scripture in God's Word. Why doesn't is bother you that you must ignore clear scripture to come to your understanding of your select scripture? It's your move Tom. If you are a Pastor then you have a responsibility to be honest with yourself because people are counting on you.


It's not that He simply knows it from the foundations of the world because He looked into the future and seen what man chose by his own libertarian free will, He hath chosen us in Him before the foundations of the world, having predestinated us, according to the good pleasure of His will.

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Dave

It is not a matter of avoiding the truth but rather avoiding an argument that does no one any good as I am sure that you are not going to change your mind and we most certainly are not. We have "faced" this worn out subject here time and time again with many that believe as you do with the result being the same. No edification of anyone involved and someone gets banned due to carrying it too far. Brother Tom has posted the truth and it is the truth from the word of God.

It is plain and simple no one here wants to argue with you on this subject as it is apparent that you do. I you did not want to argue as you said you didn't then you would have dropped it instead of insisting that someone here doesn't want to face the truth as you so inaptly accuse.

Let me begin by saying to Brother's Tom and Bob...AMEN!!!!

And to Brother Dave...Keep studying.  May God bless you as you seek to learn of Him.  I truly think that those who begin as Calvinists have a much deeper understanding of the Sovereignty of God.  I was there once.  I no longer am, as scripture doesn't support such a view. 

My personal viewpoint?  I'm saved because God chose for me to be saved before the foundations of the world, and somewhere along the line, I made a decision that He gave me to make that had eternal consequence.  Did God chose for me to be saved?  Yupperz!  The Bible says so.  Did God chose for others to go to Hell?  Noperz!  The Bible says that He's not willing that any should perish, that He died for all, and that He calls all men everywhere unto repentance.  He also says that those who fail to come to Him do so by their own fault (Romans 1).  If a man gets saved, it's God's work.  If a man goes to Hell, it's his own fault. 

Any other approach spiritualizes passages to the point of changing their meaning.

Keep your passion Brothers!  And everyone, keep in the word and let God show you His truth.   :)

Hi AllinAll


I decided not to debate this topic for now. For the most part, what you said is Calvinism. Unfortunately, too much time is spent arguing over terms and there meanings. You are much more a reformed in your theology than you may know, or maybe you do know. ;). If not, this chart may help. http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/balanced.html

http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/calvinismindex.html

Here are some quotes that surprise some who read them.

Spurgeon:
"The Calvinist has said, and said right bravely, that salvation is of grace alone; and the Arminian has said, and said most truthfully, that damnation is of man’s will alone, and as the result of man’s sin, and of that only. Then they have fallen out with one another. The fact is, they had each one laid hold of a truth, and if they could have put their heads together, and accepted both truths, it might have been greatly for the advantage of the Church of Christ. These two doctrines are like tram lines that you can travel on with safety and comfort, these parallel lines-ruin, of man; restoration, of God: sin, of man’s will; salvation, of God’s will: reprobation, of man’s demerit; election, of God’s free and sovereign grace: the sinner lost in hell through himself alone, the saint lifted up to heaven wholly and alone by the power and grace of God. Get those two truths thoroughly engraven upon your heart, and you will then hold comprehensively the great truths of Scripture. You will not need to crowd them into one narrow system of theology, but you will have a sort of duplicate system" (MTP 41:500)
 
He also said:

"But I do maintain there should be, and there must be if our churches are to be healthy and sound, a constant adherence to the fundamental doctrines of divine truth. I should be prepared to go a very long way for charity’s sake, and admit that very much of the discussion which has existed even between Arminians and Calvinists has not been a discussion about vital truth, but about the terms in which that vital truth shall be stated." (MTP 6:395)

"Try to see the whole range of Scripture. Believe in Calvinism; but if there be a single truth which only the Arminians hold, believe that too. Do not put your feet into Chinese shoes to be squeezed after the current fashion into an orthodox shape; be willing to have a broad understanding: receive anything which God has revealed, and be content to take the whole of God’s truth, whether you can make it into a system or not." (11:42)"

"The most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometimes, I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue: and, to this day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John Calvin and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to defend your man of straw — shoot at it or burn it as you will, and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were never in existence." (7:550"

CALVIN: "The blame lies solely with ourselves, if we do not become partakers of this salvation; for he calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illuminated by him. (Commentary on Isaiah the Prophet)"

Even Jacob Arminius who vehemently opposed his teachings wrote:

"Next to the perusal of the Scriptures. Which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin's commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms that Helmich himself: for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the Library of the Fathers: so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above all others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent gift of prophecy." (Quoted by CH Spurgeon in Commenting and Commentaries)


Peace

Dave

Reformed?  Nah.  Biblical?  Yes.   ;D  Here's my basic point: this topic is a mystery.  I've expressed in my previous post the two points that scripture makes on this matter.  All else is conjecture, human logic, reason and above all else, a prideful attempt to understand something that God Himself has only partially revealed to us at this time (preaching to myself folks  :)).

Scripture is clear: God chose some to be saved.  One must not spiritualize this into the thought that man's freewill determines whether or not he falls into this category.  Wont as I am, this is scripture.  I struggled with this for a long time, trying to figure it out.  I came to the conclusion that this isn't a matter I can figure out.  It's a point of faith I must accept.  I don't get this any more than I completely get our Triune God.  But I believe both.  Why?  Because He said so. 

The reason, however Brother Dave, that I'm not a Calvinist, is that NOWHERE in scripture do you find a verse that says God choses for anyone to go to hell.  You have a verse that says He chose some to be saved - we don't get that, and so either "accept" that He chose some to go to hell and some to heaven, or we fight that idea.  I had to question why we fought that idea in the first place.  Do you know what I found?  We fight it, because God did not remain mute on the subject.  He says that He loves all, died for all, calls all, and is not willing that any should perish.  Calvinists spiritualize this to apply only to the "elect."  Problem - ALL means ALL.  Had God not said these things, one may have a biblical leg to stand on to believe that He chose some folks to go to hell.  But He did.  We fight it because to imply that He chose for some eternal damnation goes in the very face of scripture.

Some may get heated about this topic.  I hope and trust I've not moved anyone to that point, and I ask forgiveness if I've done so.  This is what I know to be true.  I won't apologize for that, but I also won't cram it down anyone's throat.   :)  I think that this is an area that God will teach us all through as we grow in Him.  I also think that when we get to Heaven, we'll find out just exactly how wrong each of us was in our limited understanding of a great mystery He's given us to chew on. 

His,

Kevin

AMEN you got it brother.
This is one of the reasons, we are not to follow the doctrine of man. Following the doctrine of man, can lead to doom,  but the Doctrine of God leads to Salvation.

2 John 1:9 Anyone who runs on ahead [of God] and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ [who is not content with what He taught] does not have God; but he who continues to live in the doctrine (teaching) of Christ [does have God], he has both the Father and the Son.

Titus 1:9 He must hold fast to the sure and trustworthy Word of God as he was taught it, so that he may be able both to give stimulating instruction and encouragement in sound (wholesome) doctrine and to refute and convict those who contradict and oppose it [showing the wayward their error].

1 Corinthians 3:17 If anyone does hurt to God's temple or corrupts it [ with false doctrines] or destroys it, God will do hurt to him and bring him to the corruption of death and destroy him. For the temple of God is holy (sacred to Him) and that [temple] you [ the believing church and its individual believers] are.

Colossians 2:23 Such [practices] have indeed the outward appearance [that popularly passes] for wisdom, in promoting self-imposed rigor of devotion and delight in self-humiliation and severity of discipline of the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh (the lower nature). [Instead, they do not honor God but serve only to indulge the flesh.]

You are fine on this brother, as I do agree with you. This is an area that God will teach us all, as we grow in Christ.

Allinall wrote:

Allinall, thanks for the reply. Your understanding of Calvinism is very far off. I provided you with links so that you could see for yourself. I don't know why it is so hard for you to let go of your false ideas of what you believe others believe, even when they themselves tell you that they don't believe it. 

Most people will allow God to be on His throne when He created the earth and the stars etc.., but they will gnash their teeth at God before they will recognise Him on His throne over us. I think that you will find that most false teaching today clings desperately to a foundation of philosophy, and tries to distort God's Word to their fallen assumptions. I do believe that the original point made was on solid Biblical ground and has yet to be addressed honestly by anyone who disagrees with it. As Samuel Storm puts very nicely...

"The obvious problem with this [that foreknew means God looked into the future to see what man would choose by his libertarian free will] view is that it lacks biblical warrant. No text of which i am aware says any such thing. This philosophical assumption is based on what the Arminian considers 'intellectually reasonable.' It is brought to the text as a pre-exegetical criterion to be used in deciding what a passage will be allowed to say. When confronted with texts that simultaneously assert the antecedence of divine sovereignty and the significance of human behavior, Arminians recoil, insisting that such is at best theologically contradictory and at worst morally devastating. Interestingly, neither God nor the authors of scripture seem bothered by what what agitates Arminians" (Samuel Storm) [mine]

Basically the root of the assumption used by others to reject God's sovereignty is the question posed by Dave Hunt that seems to have caught hold of the new age movement, that is "would a loving God do this?". Unfortunately, those who pose this question in their hearts stop well short of revealing it's fallacy in this matter. Assuming that "foreknew" meant that God looked into the future and seen who, by their libertarian free will, decided to give their hearts to Christ, then He predestined them, even though that would clearly be adding to the meaning of that passage, then you still have a God Who created masses of people that He knew would never come to faith. Would a loving God do that? The Arminian, if he is honest with himself, fails His own test of love and exposes his reasoning as one that is not grounded in scripture, but in fallen assumptions.

Also, all man did not start at a neutral place, forcing God to choose some for glory and some for eternal punishment. We were, and are all guilty, every one of us, and God, by His mercy chose some out of that. If there were any discrimination in this matter (and i'm not saying that there is), it would be in the fact that we are all guilty and deserving of eternal hell, but by His mercy, He chose some out of that punishment, not in the false idea that we are all neutral and God chose some for hell and some for glory.

Peace

Not to argue with you Brother Dave, but the links you've provided aren't necessary.  I've already studied this out for the past 10 years of my walk with Christ.  Not saying that I've arrived, mind you, just that I've spent 10 years reading these doctrines.  My mind isn't made up of Armenian, Calvinistic, or other forms of theology.  My mind is made up because the scriptures say these things.  I am, have been, and always will be a biblicist.  If you read my posts, you'll find that this is my endeavor - to be true to scripture, even when it may disagree with the philosophies we've adopted.

I do not begrudge your viewpoint Brother.  I simply disagree with it.   :)  As for God's sovereignty...you're preaching to the choir!   :D  Understand brother, NO MAN gets saved apart from God's sovereign plan and working.  Part of that working is God's sovereign choice to give each man the opportunity to obey His calling.  I have a 5 pointer Calvinist friend in my church who always teases me saying, "That's okay Kev!  If your God's not big enough to control your life..."  I'll ask you the same question I've asked him: Does God sovereignly chosing to give man the opportunity to accept His calling make God any smaller?   :)

As far as free will goes...don't get me started!   ;D  I personally don't see this concept anywhere in scripture.  I see God sovereignly controlling many choices men have made in scripture, and I've seen Him sovereignly choose to allow man to make his own choices and suffer the consequences, both good and bad.

It can get quite confusing.  But in the end, Brother, I'm a biblicist.  God said these things and that's good enough for me.  Maybe we'll make each other a deal?  If you're right when we get to Heaven, I owe you dinner sometime.  If I'm right, I'll still have you for dinner.   :)

His,

Kevin

Thanks for the reply Keven. Being a Biblicist, you can't go wrong with that. Sometimes the terms Calvinism/Arminianism just get in the way, but they are helpful in giving a basic understanding of where one is coming from theologically.


No, not at all. But I probably would think of the word "opportunity" differently than you do. Everyone has the opportunity, it's just that no one is capable of making the right choice without God making the first move. When Christ died on the cross, I don't believe that He simply made salvation a possibility, I believe that there was actual sin nailed to the cross. And we know that election is "unto salvation", with much emphasis put on the word "unto". All that the Father Gives to Him...

If you take a look at the thread called (going by memory) "God's sovereignty and mans will" you can see that some of these thing are being discussed. For me, it is confusing at times and many times I often set studies aside until I regain my strength and determination. I've found over time that confronting these tough questions can be also be very rewarding. There is a place for knowing that we must accept God at His Word even when we cannot rationalize some of these things in our minds, but should this stop our search for the answer? Maybe it's arrogant of me to think this way, but I always approach scripture knowing that God can reveal something to me that He has never revealed to any man at any time. There's nothing special about me and I don't deserve to know more than others, but He can and will use me in this way. Then I can share it with everyone. So even if it's the "ultimate question" that has been debated for centuries, I still have no problem seeking the answer.

God Bless you Keven

In Christ Jesus

Dave

AMEN brother, God said it, I believe it.

I knew I liked you for some reason!   ;D ;)  Can't go wrong believing God Bro.   :)

One of the reasons you and I, do see eye to eye is because, I also am a Biblicist. Thats one of the reasons, I can talk to you easier, then some of the others can. But if you remember back, I told y'all that before.

"Foreknow" as used in Romans 8:29
 
NT:4267
proginosko (prog-in-oce'-ko); from NT:4253 and NT:1097; to know beforehand, i.e. foresee:

KJV - foreknow (ordain), know (before).

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Romans 8:29:

 -- King James
Romans 8:29  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

-- American Standard
Romans 8:29  For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:

-- Living Bible
Romans 8:29  For from the very beginning God decided that those who came to him--and all along he knew who would--should become like his Son, so that his Son would be the First, with many brothers.

-- Revised Standard
Romans 8:29  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. 

-- Simple English
Romans 8:29  The people whom God knew about long ago were made a part of God's plan long ago. God wanted them to become just like His Son. This is the way Christ would be the firstborn among many brothers.

-- Transliterated, Pronounceable
Romans 8:29  Ho'ti hou's proe'gnoo, kai' prooo'risen summo'rfous tee'seiko'nos tou' Huiou' autou', eis to' ei'nai auto'n prooto'tokonen polloi's adelfoi's,

-- Transliterated, Unaccented
Romans 8:29  Hoti hous proegno, kai proorisen summorfous teseikonos tou Huiou autou, eis to einai auton prototokonen pollois adelfois,

-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Romans 8:29  He decided beforehand who were the ones destined to be moulded to the pattern of his Son, so that he should be the eldest of many brothers;

-- Young's Bible
Romans 8:29  because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be first-born among many brethren;

-- Darby's Bible
Romans 8:29  Because whom he has foreknown, he has also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he should be the firstborn among many brethren.

-- Weymouth's New Testament
Romans 8:29  For those whom He has known beforehand He has also pre-destined to bear the likeness of His Son, that He might be the Eldest in a vast family of brothers;

-- Webster's Bible
Romans 8:29  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon:


NT:4267
proginooskoo;
to have knowledge of beforehand; to foreknow: namely, tauta, 2 Peter 3:17

(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 2000 by Biblesoft)



Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Topics: Foreknowl'edge of God

Text:  Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2), one of those high attributes essentially appertaining to him the full import of which we cannot comprehend. In the most absolute sense his knowledge is infinite (1 Sam. 23: 9-13; Jer. 38:17-23; 42:9-22, Matt. 11: 21, 23; Acts 15:18).


ollie

There ya go.  Makin' me remember again... ;D  Amen Brother!

Allinall, you've given one of the best explanations and there's only a partial sentence that I'm not exactly sure on it but I will keep it in mind until the time when its needed for me to meditate on which I don't think is now.

I too have studied, pondered, prayed, reasoned on Calvinist theory, Calvinist Christians, famous Calvinist preachers and do not agree with Calvinism. I'm so glad that this board does not go crazy like other boards where Calvinists try to force their theories (which they insist is biblical ie Calvinist=Biblical) down people's throats and those that do not agree with them are falsely accused to have misunderstood Calvinism or refused to 'bow down' to God. Please keep the board this way. There are better things that should be done with one's time ie saving souls and disciplining oneself to cultivate the fruits of the spirit. Discussions can be good but when it gets  non-stop and other more important areas are overlooked, then its wrong. A board need not be the most active to be the most fruitful. This board is far from being the most active Christian board, but is certainly one of the Christian board that has the least fights and wasting of time coupled with good biblical teachings.


Guess, the main reason why I have decided to write is so that I am able to search for this thread easily now by just searching for my username. Also, I hope that any Calvinists that see it would really stop, think for a while how they come across to others and PRAY A LOT before they keep posting on this topic (Calvinism) and instead choose to cultivate the fruits of the spirit instead. I do agree with Allinall that Calvinists have some deep understanding of scriptures but not all their understanding is correct and the way that is being done to spread Calvinism is incorrect. Spend more time instead on the board's bible study section. Its not the most 'interesting' but it can be one of the most 'fruitful'.

Something has just come to my mind. And now, I can agree with what Allinall says on that partial sentence that I wasn't sure of earlier on.

In Acts 16:14 One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message

The above has been one of the stronger points used by Calvinists to say that God choses whom He allows to believe. But if you meditate on this verse  and other verses where the people believed, I noticed this. I'm far from the best at remembering the bible verses but as far as I know I can't recall a verse that  says God makes/caused/forced them to believe in Him (rather, the verses have been : And they/men/women believed.)

I do believe that God needs to open up our hearts to believe and be willing to believe/respond first (just like in Lydia's case) but then we need to then make a choice whether to follow God or not.

Does the above then rule out God's sovereign choice and election or does that mean God is frustrated in His plans--not at all. How all this seemingly conflicting meanings fit in--God has chosen not to reveal fully to us. After all in Isaiah 55:8   "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord. Let's not try to force an understanding that God has chosen not to give us. Just like the Trinity, we have not tried to force an understanding but accept it because the scriptures say that.  So is it with this election, God's sovereignty and the many verses that seemed to conflict with God's sovereign choice and election.


With this I can now reconcile and accept Allinall's partial sentence of 'somewhere along the line, I made a decision that He gave me to make that had eternal consequence' (I've already agreed with the 1st half of his earlier sentence but was a bit unsure about the later half.

Allinall's sentence
My personal viewpoint?  I'm saved because God chose for me to be saved before the foundations of the world, and somewhere along the line, I made a decision that He gave me to make that had eternal consequence

With regards to 'free will', election and God's sovereign choice, I believe in all three, with God's sovereign choice taking 1st place and the 'free will' definition maybe not as wide a meaning as some people would define it. As I do not have a better word for this 'free will definition' of mine, I have continued and most likely will continue to use 'free will' for usage simplicity and understanding.


I believe when we are really willing to let God lead us to the truth and not hold on dogmatically to manmade doctrines or try to satisfy our own 'carnal desire' to understand it the way we want it to be (one of the reason for some Calvinists could be to make them feel more secure--after all they are part of the elect), then God will lead us. This has to be done with lots of prayers, meditation on the verses and the willingness to be wrong and  to be hurt before the truth can be revealed.

I realize that I'm not very clear in my post above, but its difficult to write down everything in my thoughts as that would make for very long posts which is not my desire. So I've chosen to say just a small portion of my thoughts above and omit mentioning the many verses to substantiate my reasoning. One day I may need to recall this thought and I guess that's one of the reason why I write so that I can refer to it back in later years.

I think that both of your post were plenty clear enough to understand and that you have hit on a very important part of this subject. It is quite clear that God has given us all a choice to make, that of believing in Him and accepting Him or that of rejecting Him. It is God that has put this within us. Yes, there are many scriptures that support this.