"The Meaning of Foreknew in Romans 8:29"
You may ask why this is in the dispensationalism forum. It's because it has everything to do with the transition from the old Testament to the New Testament.
I copied this out of a book that I once owned called "The Five Points of Calvinism, Defined, Defended and documented" about twenty years ago. You'll still find it floating around the internet on some forums. I wanted to confront that interpretation that I once defended.
Amazon.com
To my surprise, I found it, but not by me, rather, it was on monergism.com. Perhaps they copied my copy, as it still has some mistakes pointed out in the spell checker, mostly with spacing that I just now fixed.
You should read it, as some of the points made in that article I'll be discussing and using for proof of my position. You can read it here if you like.
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
www.monergism.com
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; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
-------------
QUOTE from the book:
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! ...END QUOTE
---------
I would add that Calvinism is also adding a qualifying notion. That being, Whom He foreknew [from the foundations of the world]. That simply is assumed into the text. If that was what was meant, it would be easy to just say it, as Peter did in 1 Peter 1:20
1 Peter 1:2 He indeed was foreordained [foreknew] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (Also see 1 Peter 1:2)
(ESV) "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you"
The same Greek word for "foreordained" in 1 Peter 1:20 and "foreknew" in Romans 8:29. Also see John 17:24.
John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
So foreknown [from the foundations of the world] "Foundations of the world" is assumed by the Calvinist interpretation. It sounds reasonable, right? There is predestination right after that.
Let me offer some context that Calvinism doesn't use because their understanding of Scripture limits that context. In Romans 8:28-29, Paul is speaking of true OT believers. That's the flow of the whole book in context, and the more immediate context is the same. They were foreknown as believers already, and were given to the Son by the Father, so that He would not lose one of them, thus predestined to be what? Conformed to the the image of His Son. These were already appointed to eternal life as true OT believers, and were thus foreknown by God, but would need to make the transition to the Gospel message as believers. These He also called (with the Gospel), His Sheep will hear His voice. Those He called, He also justified [in Christ, Pentecost and beyond] also see Romans 3:25. And those He justified, He glorified.
It's actually fits perfectly. If you think that sounds wrong, consider that Paul tells us who is foreknown in Romans 11:2.
Romans 11:1-5 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, "Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
It's Israel. That's the same point that the five points of Calvinism was making, they just didn't examine that Scripture with the entire context, since most Calvinists believe that there is no transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament. That there is no difference in the way God deals with people from one to the other. That OT believers were saved and already had all the benefits of being in Christ. I disagree with that. Listen to the argument made in that article, it actually supports what I'm saying.
This Gospel that these Jews were hearing was completely different from what they expected and understood. Paul is explaining the Law verses grace. How physical Israel is different from Spiritual Israel. How God chastising the Jews and including the Gentiles was part of His eternal plan. How those Jews who God had chastised could still be a part of that plan of salvation. It's a covenant by faith, not of the Law. Peter makes the same kind of Argument to similar minded Jews of that time who were also ignorant as to what was happening in Acts1-2.
Acts 2:22-23 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-- Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
To use the same argument as the article, I think its not part of the Text, and therefore not necessary to add [from the foundations of the world] to the meaning of the word foreknew. I understand why that idea was assumed into the term foreknew from the Calvinist framework, but I believe that framework lacks the proper context. As the writer points out, God is speaking of a particular people who He foreloved. That's Israel. And they, the true believers, spiritual Israel, were predestined to take the next step in that transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament and come to faith in Jesus Christ, thus placing them in Christ, [after Pentecost] and as a result, being justified in Him and being conformed to His image.
Any thoughts?
thinkingbeyondscience.in
