Here again, what those God foreknew were
predestined for is not to be saved, but to be “conformed to the image of his
Son.”
The first observation we can make here is the
idea that some individuals are predestined to be saved and others are
predestined to be lost is not to be found in this passage. Calvinist Chris Date
makes this mistake of seeing what is not there in this passage:
Foreknowledge here must not refer merely to
advance cognitive awareness of individuals or what they will do, for God in
this way foreknows everyone. Nor can the objects of God’s foreknowledge here be
a superset (all mankind) of a subset (those who are predestined), for both
verbs and those that follow share the same direct object. Rather, as Thomas
Schreiner explains, “The background of the term [foreknowledge] should be
located in the OT, where for God ‘to know’ refers to his covenantal love in
which he sets his affection on those whom he has chosen (cf. Gen. 18:19; Exod.
33:17; 1 Sam. 2:12; Ps. 18:43; Prov. 9:10; Jer. 1:5; Hos. 13:5; Amos 3:2).” And
as Douglas Moo observes, other New Testament references to God’s foreknowledge
of persons “mean not ‘know before’—in the sense of intellectual knowledge or cognition—but
‘enter into relationship before’ or ‘choose, or determine, before’ (Rom. 11:2;
1 Pet. 1:20; Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2).” Thus, Paul’s meaning in Romans 8:29-30 is
that those whom God chose in advance, he predestined—and called, justified, and
glorified.
The
fallacies in Date’s treatment of the term foreknowledge above are subtle
but profound. First, the Old Testament of God’s foreknowledge refers to Israel
as his chosen people. What were the people of Israel chosen for? To be
saved? Negative. The people of Israel were chosen to carry God’s plan of
redemption to the world at large. They were to be the cradle of salvation, not
necessarily the recipients of it. Not every Israelite in history will automatically
wind up in heaven for eternity simply because he was one of God’s original
chosen people. Israelites must be saved on the same basis that everyone else
is, which is not based on being “chosen” for anything. Therefore the reference to
God’s foreknowledge of Israel in this context is irrelevant.
Second, and
more importantly, Date smuggles the word chose into the last sentence of
the above quote unannounced, uninvited, and unsupported. God chose Israel and
they were the object of God’s foreknowledge. But since they were not chosen for
salvation but to serve God’s purposes, the concept of being chosen cannot be
justifiably connected to God’s foreknowledge in the New Testament. Therefore,
Date’s abrupt leap from foreknowledge to chosen is question-begging.
Third, date
is focused on the wrong concept in this passage. Ultimately, the meaning of the
word foreknowledge is not what matters here. What counts is what makes some
human beings belong in the category of whom God foreknew. This passages does
not directly answer that question. IT does, however, give us a clue. The class
of people God foreknew is the same class as those who are justified, called,
and glorified. The word justified is the key. Why? Because we know what
justifies the incipient believer: faith in Christ. So Paul is talking about a
single group of people, and assigns a number of categories to that group:
foreknew, called, justified, and glorified. We have specific information in the
rest of scripture about those who are justified. That does not change,
regardless of what we know about any other of those categories. Since we know
that those who are justified are those who put their faith in Christ (Romans
4:5; 5:1; Galatians 2:16, 3:24), it follows that those who are foreknown,
called, and glorified are also those who put their faith in Christ. So now we
have our answer to whom these foreknown people are: those who put their faith
in Christ.
The
question o the hour is, do people put their faith in Christ because they are
foreknown, or are they foreknown because they put their faith in Christ? The
Calvinist would say it is the former. Beginning the question? Absolutely. God
can foreknow—even in a relational sense—those who freely choose to put their
faith in Christ without necessarily determining that they will do so through,
or by, or as a consequence of his foreknowledge. I repeat my earlier
observation: what matters is not what the term foreknowledge means, but to whom
it is ascribed. The meaning of the term is a worthwhile study, but it has no
bearing on whether some people are predestined (determined)t to be saved or
lost.
The
Calvinist, driven by deterministic dogma, is reading a great deal of content
into Romans 8 that isn’t there. When they read “those he foreknew he also
predestined to be conformed,” what they see instead is, “those he predestined
to be conformed he predestined to be foreknown.” That passage doesn’t say
anyone is predestined to be foreknown. Since the scriptures clearly indicate
that putting our faith in Christ is a decision man freely makes for himself as
opposed to one God makes for us, it follows that the answer to the question o
the house above is: people are foreknown because they freely choose to put
their faith in Christ.
Part of the
reason I focus on the who of foreknowledge rather than its definition is
that the latter could be construed as something God does rather than
simply something he knows. I contend that there is no basis in the text
for claiming foreknowledge as some kind of efficacious action on God’s part.
The Greek word translated foreknew (προεγνω) occurs in the New Testament only five times.
In two of these usages, it refers to God knowing something ahead of time
(Romans 8:29, and 11:2). In two others, it refers to human beings knowing
something in advance (Acts 26:5, and 2 Peter 3:17). In the remaining passage (1
Peter 1:20), who is in possession of the knowledge is inconclusive. We have no
reason to believe that the meaning of the word ever goes beyond benign cognition.
In the analytical Greek concordances, the singular definition and usage of the
term is simply to know beforehand, and nothing more. There is no
definition that includes something like to do beforehand.
At the end of the day, though he mentions concepts
that are indirectly related to soteriology, Paul’s intention in these verses
is not to describe the mechanics of soteriology. Instead, his intention is
to show that God is our advocate in our weakness and suffering.
To attempt
to derive a comprehensive blueprint for soteriology from these verses is to rip
them out of context and filet them into something they were never meant to say.
The context of Romans 8 in the surrounding affirmations is our victory in
Christ and how no third party being or influence can separate us from God’s
love and care. Paul is crafting a strong nexus between God being for us
(meaning no one of consequence can be against us) and our conformity to
the image of his Son. Since our faith in Christ guarantees (predestines) us to
be conformed to his Son, what follows—our calling, justification, and glorification—certify
that nothing can come between us and God. To claim determinism through
antecedent necessity in reference to individual salvation from Romans 8 is to
mutilate the text beyond recognition. (Phil Bair, Calvin’s Desperation: How
John Calvin’s Unbiblical Divine Determinism Destroys the Credibility of the
Christian Faith [2023], 120-24, italics in original)