"The Meaning of Foreknew in Romans 8:29"

[Silverhair]

You will give account of yourself unto God, as I will. I am okay with it.
rom14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

On this we do agree Z.

 

[atpollard]

What is God's purpose @atpollard?

That those that would repent and trust in Him would be saved.

Respectfully, I view that s too human-centric in its focus. An IDOL exists to serve mankind (that is its purpose). The great I AM exists and all things serve His purpose. Thus God’s purpose, (imho) is better expressed by:

Romans 9:15-16 [ESV] For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

1 Peter 2:9-10 [ESV] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

… In both cases, the focus is on HIM (and what He does) rather than us (and what we do).

 

[Van]

I see this thread has existed for a while, and is now on page 3. I am just addressing the opening post by Dave.

The post starts by presenting the traditional Calvinist claims. First, they claim God knows everything imaginable and does not have the inherent power to choose not to know anything, He really cannot remember no more, and when He said now I know, He did not mean He had not known before. Thus the starting premise is doctrine over scripture, rather than the other way around.

Next, the Calvinist view claims those in view in Romans 8:29 were foreknown in a "different way" than other humans. From here, with different way undefined, they claim the dreaded Arminians have read into scripture something not valid. Then, accurately the Calvinists observe there is no need or basis for reading anything into the meaning of foreknew. Then in the very next sentence, the Calvinists say God foreknew specific individuals. So whether you think "foundation of the world" refers to some aspect of the creation of the universe, or some aspect of the creation of humanity, the foreknowledge existed during the creation week of Genesis I, and not later. Since either no humans had been created, or only two humans had been created, the knowledge concerned "foreseen" people, probably as the target group of His redemption plan.

Next, again trying to bolster the view that God must know everything imaginable, they rewrite the line from scripture, "I never knew you," to mean God actually knew them but not in their special way. So their view seems to be God knows everything imaginable within the confines of Calvinist doctrine. This seeming addition to scripture seems to have escaped their notice. Next, God knew Jeremiah, but not everything about him. But God has a "special regard" for Jeremiah before God formed him in his mother's womb. We know that pretty much the entire time the baby exists as a separate life form, God is forming the baby, so God's knowledge could be from the third trimester.

Basically, Calvinism reads into "foreknew" their own definition, a special relationship with individuals supposedly chosen "before" the foundation of the world. The problem with not knowing them until after the foundation of the world, is ignored. Otherwise names would have been written in the Lambs book of life BEFORE the foundation of the world. Nuff said....

But now let us turn by an actual analysis to "foreknowledge!"

First the Greek word, translated as foreknew by the NASB in Romans 8:29 is "Proginosko" G4267, a Verb in the AAI 3d Person Singular form. This same verb in the exact same grammatical form is also found in Romans 11:2 and refers to God's foreknowledge of His People as a single group. This same verb is also found in different grammatical forms in Acts 26:5, 1 Peter 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:17.

The noun Proginosis, G4268 is found in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2. In both of these verses God is implementing a plan formulated beforehand. In Acts, God is implementing Christ's sacrifice according to God's knowledge of His redemption plan. In 1 Peter 1:2, God is implementing the choosing of individuals for salvation according to God's knowledge of His redemption plan. So foreknowledge refers to implementing in the present, a predetermined plan.

Now if we look by at Romans 8:29, we see God had formulated a redemption plan before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:20, and began implementing His plan with the death of Christ, so Christ would be the first born of many siblings, children of God. Those chosen were chosen according to His redemption plan, by being set apart in Christ, 1 Peter 1:2.

Final point, turning to Ephesians 1:4 when God chose Christ to be His Lamb, BEFORE the foundation of the world, He chose "us" (believers as the target group of His redemption plan, because you do not choose a Redeemer, without a plan to redeem. Thus Ephesians 1:4 refers to Christ's individual election and our consequent corporate election, which would be fulfilled individually after Christ's death.

Romans 8:29 Interpretive translation
For those whom He corporately elected according to His redemption plan, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters;

They were (the corporately elected) also predestine to be conformed to the image of Christ, and subsequently they were called, transferred spiritually into Christ, and those called into Christ were then justified by the washing of regeneration, and therefore spiritually glorified as holy and blameless saints abiding in Christ.

 

[Zaatar71]

I see this thread has existed for a while, and is now on page 3. I am just addressing the opening post by Dave.

The post starts by presenting the traditional Calvinist claims. First, they claim God knows everything imaginable and does not have the inherent power to choose not to know anything, He really cannot remember no more, and when He said now I know, He did not mean He had not known before. Thus the starting premise is doctrine over scripture, rather than the other way around.

Next, the Calvinist view claims those in view in Romans 8:29 were foreknown in a "different way" than other humans. From here, with different way undefined, they claim the dreaded Arminians have read into scripture something not valid. Then, accurately the Calvinists observe there is no need or basis for reading anything into the meaning of foreknew. Then in the very next sentence, the Calvinists say God foreknew specific individuals. So whether you think "foundation of the world" refers to some aspect of the creation of the universe, or some aspect of the creation of humanity, the foreknowledge existed during the creation week of Genesis I, and not later. Since either no humans had been created, or only two humans had been created, the knowledge concerned "foreseen" people, probably as the target group of His redemption plan.

Next, again trying to bolster the view that God must know everything imaginable, they rewrite the line from scripture, "I never knew you," to mean God actually knew them but not in their special way. So their view seems to be God knows everything imaginable within the confines of Calvinist doctrine. This seeming addition to scripture seems to have escaped their notice. Next, God knew Jeremiah, but not everything about him. But God has a "special regard" for Jeremiah before God formed him in his mother's womb. We know that pretty much the entire time the baby exists as a separate life form, God is forming the baby, so God's knowledge could be from the third trimester.

Basically, Calvinism reads into "foreknew" their own definition, a special relationship with individuals supposedly chosen "before" the foundation of the world. The problem with not knowing them until after the foundation of the world, is ignored. Otherwise names would have been written in the Lambs book of life BEFORE the foundation of the world. Nuff said....

But now let us turn by an actual analysis to "foreknowledge!"

First the Greek word, translated as foreknew by the NASB in Romans 8:29 is "Proginosko" G4267, a Verb in the AAI 3d Person Singular form. This same verb in the exact same grammatical form is also found in Romans 11:2 and refers to God's foreknowledge of His People as a single group. This same verb is also found in different grammatical forms in Acts 26:5, 1 Peter 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:17.

The noun Proginosis, G4268 is found in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2. In both of these verses God is implementing a plan formulated beforehand. In Acts, God is implementing Christ's sacrifice according to God's knowledge of His redemption plan. In 1 Peter 1:2, God is implementing the choosing of individuals for salvation according to God's knowledge of His redemption plan. So foreknowledge refers to implementing in the present, a predetermined plan.

Now if we look by at Romans 8:29, we see God had formulated a redemption plan before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:20, and began implementing His plan with the death of Christ, so Christ would be the first born of many siblings, children of God. Those chosen were chosen according to His redemption plan, by being set apart in Christ, 1 Peter 1:2.

Final point, turning to Ephesians 1:4 when God chose Christ to be His Lamb, BEFORE the foundation of the world, He chose "us" (believers as the target group of His redemption plan, because you do not choose a Redeemer, without a plan to redeem. Thus Ephesians 1:4 refers to Christ's individual election and our consequent corporate election, which would be fulfilled individually after Christ's death.

Romans 8:29 Interpretive translation
For those whom He corporately elected according to His redemption plan, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters;

They were (the corporately elected) also predestine to be conformed to the image of Christ, and subsequently they were called, transferred spiritually into Christ, and those called into Christ were then justified by the washing of regeneration, and therefore spiritually glorified as holy and blameless saints abiding in Christ.

This seems to be the viewpoint of the natural man and not accurate at all.

 

[Dave...]

Romans 8:29 [ESV] For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

It is not a “something” that God foreknew, it is a “someone” (“those”).
God had a relationship (knowing someone) *****before they (we) existed. Before we were, God loved us and predestined us to be conformed to the image of his Son******. Since “love” in Hebrew connotes actions (not mere emotion), it is this “relationship before we existed” that drives … [Rom 8:30] “those whom he predestined he also called … he also justified … he also glorified.”

This part of your quote, I've highlighted with *****.

"before they (we) existed. Before we were, God loved us and predestined us to be conformed to the image of his Son".

This is an assumption that Calvinism adds to the text. 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 into 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]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 Israel.

 

[Dave G]

Any thoughts?

Not being a "Calvinist" but finding myself in agreement with much of what those who are labeled as such hold to, I would say that they are correct in their assertion that the Scriptures do indeed tell believers in Christ who the "foreknown" are, just as the Lord told Jeremiah:

" Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." ( Jeremiah 1:5 ).

In the same way, we as believers in Jesus Christ can rest assured that we, like Jeremiah and all the rest of those who were "found in God's favor" can know why we are in His favor, why He sent His Son to live, die and rise again for us and why we have hope...

Because He "foreknew" a people that He would make into a spiritual "house", and forever show to them the riches of His grace in His mercy and kindness for all eternity.

 

[Dave...]

I see this thread has existed for a while, and is now on page 3. I am just addressing the opening post by Dave.

Hey Van

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, if we qualify our being foreknown by Him with that faith, while holding to the original meaning of 'whom He foreknew', meaning intimately. But, the Calvinist will find it irresistible to attack the over simplified version, even though it probably is not entirely accurate. It's more of a half truth, if you will, that paints a false picture. This half truth is actually how it must be viewed from the Calvinist lens. 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.

So, in Short, I agree that "Foreknew" in that passage means more than mere knowledge. You can see that in Romans 11:2. Sometimes, in Scripture foreknown, or foreknew does have a that pregnant meaning. Also, If God is not bound by time, then He does know everything. That's omniscience. That's what I believe.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. to be fair, there are two sides to that lens that we see that passage through.

 

[atpollard]

This is an assumption that Calvinism adds to the text. 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 into 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]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.

YOU brought up the “foundation of the world”. I did not. I merely pointed out that:
1. “God’s foreknew those” was RELATIONAL and not mere Omniscience ‘fact based’.
2. God knew us before we were born (implied in “predestined” those he “foreknew” and “called” and “justified” … when were you and I justified at Calvary (before or after we were born)?

 

[Dave...]

Not being a "Calvinist" but finding myself in agreement with much of what those who are labeled as such hold to, I would say that they are correct in their assertion that the Scriptures do indeed tell believers in Christ who the "foreknown" are, just as the Lord told Jeremiah:

" Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." ( Jeremiah 1:5 ).

In the same way, we as believers in Jesus Christ can rest assured that we, like Jeremiah and all the rest of those who were "found in God's favor" can know why we are in His favor, why He sent His Son to live, die and rise again for us and why we have hope...

Because He "foreknew" a people that He would make into a spiritual "house", and forever show to them the riches of His grace in His mercy and kindness for all eternity.

Haven't seen you around lately, Dave. I hope things are well with you. Are you hiding in the Baptist only threads for peace from the crazies?

Thought of the day...“You can give without loving, but you cannot love without giving.”- Amy Carmichael

 

[Zaatar71]

This part of your quote, I've highlighted with *****.

"before they (we) existed. Before we were, God loved us and predestined us to be conformed to the image of his Son".

This is an assumption that Calvinism adds to the text. It doesn't say foreknew from the foundations of the world.

It is taught in several places; 2tim1:
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

It always existed , but now is made manifest.

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 into 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]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.

wrong. Romans 9 does not speak to the time, but it is found in several other places, and in fact speaks of the Covenant of Redemption

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.

The bible is given as a complete truth, not fragmented bits and pieces. The word s born again are not in Acts, does that mean no one in Acts is born again?

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 Israel

No, your dispensational nonsense is blocking your view, In a few sentenses he is going to explain that Jew and gentile, are one new man.

 

[Dave...]

2. God knew us before we were born (implied in “predestined” those he “foreknew” and “called” and “justified” … when were you and I justified at Calvary (before or after we were born)?

Hey at

I disagree that predestined, called and justified implies that we were known intimately by God before we were born. It's a different context for you and me. God knew them Romans 8:29 before they were predestined, called and justified.

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, but predestined to come to faith in Jesus. All that the Father gives Me, I shall not lose one of them.

 

[Silverhair]

Respectfully, I view that s too human-centric in its focus. An IDOL exists to serve mankind (that is its purpose). The great I AM exists and all things serve His purpose. Thus God’s purpose, (imho) is better expressed by:

Romans 9:15-16 [ESV] For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

1 Peter 2:9-10 [ESV] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

… In both cases, the focus is on HIM (and what He does) rather than us (and what we do).

Trusting in God human-centric?

You must be thinking of calvinism. That is the view where the person thinks they were so special that God picked them out for salvation over all the rest of humanity. Now that is human-centric.

Only God saves and He has chosen to save those that freely trust in Him. If the person does not believe then God does not save them does He.

Isa 45:22 Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.

Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

[Van]

This seems to be the viewpoint of the natural man and not accurate at all.

I have no problem with your viewpoint, as we are free to express our understanding of scripture. Obviously ours differ.

 

[Van]

Hey Van

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, if we qualify our being foreknown by Him with that faith, while holding to the original meaning of 'whom He foreknew', meaning intimately. But, the Calvinist will find it irresistible to attack the over simplified version, even though it probably is not entirely accurate. It's more of a half truth, if you will, that paints a false picture. This half truth is actually how it must be viewed from the Calvinist lens. 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.

So, in Short, I agree that "Foreknew" in that passage means more than mere knowledge. You can see that in Romans 11:2. Sometimes, in Scripture foreknown, or foreknew does have a that pregnant meaning. Also, If God is not bound by time, then He does know everything. That's omniscience. That's what I believe.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. to be fair, there are two sides to that lens that we see that passage through.

I agree that "whom He foreknew" is vague and therefore the group in view is not identified in that phrase. However, because of the subsequent actions of God upon this "group" we can determine it is the target group of God's redemption plan, believers with God credited faith.

Why can the "group" not be comprised of individuals? I have addressed this dozens of times, but let me repeat it again. 1 Peter 2:9-10 teaches those saved once were not a people, a people chosen for His own possession, and once had not received mercy, therefore could not have been individually elected, as that action grants mercy. It is a lock.

Last point of restatement, the Calvinist view tries to equate one of the meanings of "knew" (as used in the phrase, I never knew you) with the meaning of knew in the compound words translated as foreknew. This invalid as the meaning of "knew" in the compound word is always "information," sometimes a plan of action, acquired in the past and being utilized in the present. To read this other meaning into the text is eisegesis, not exegesis.

 

[Dave...]

I agree that "whom He foreknew" is vague and therefore the group in view is not identified in that phrase. However, because of the subsequent actions of God upon this "group" we can determine it is the target group of God's redemption plan, believers with God credited faith.

Why can the "group" not be comprised of individuals? I have addressed this dozens of times, but let me repeat it again. 1 Peter 2:9-10 teaches those saved once were not a people, a people chosen for His own possession, and once had not received mercy, therefore could not have been individually elected, as that action grants mercy. It is a lock.

Last point of restatement, the Calvinist view tries to equate one of the meanings of "knew" (as used in the phrase, I never knew you) with the meaning of knew in the compound words translated as foreknew. This invalid as the meaning of "knew" in the compound word is always "information," sometimes a plan of action, acquired in the past and being utilized in the present. To read this other meaning into the text is eisegesis, not exegesis.

Interesting thought.

In 1 Peter 2:9-10 Peter applies OT language meant for physical Israel to spiritual Israel which now includes Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles "who were once not a people", are now part of this "people of God". I think this is a message to the Gentiles as a whole.

 

[Dave...]

It is taught in several places; 2tim1:
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

It always existed , but now is made manifest.

Hey Z

Jesus is the One who is elect. That election of Him was given to us before the world began by God's design, That idea is always obvious because we are elect "in Him".

'not according to works' is contrasting what happens 'in Christ' by grace with works. The purpose of grace, God's design for us top be saved by, was provided by God for us from before the world began.

wrong. Romans 9 does not speak to the time, but it is found in several other places, and in fact speaks of the Covenant of Redemption

The bible is given as a complete truth, not fragmented bits and pieces. The word s born again are not in Acts, does that mean no one in Acts is born again?

I never said it spoke about time.