Following on the heels of the argumentation provided for regeneration preceding faith in 1 John 5:1 (which can be viewed here), I would like to provide a defense of the reformed doctrine of God’s unconditional election and predestination in Romans 8:28-30. In order to do this, I have provided another abridged version (the full thread can be read here) of a conversation that I had in the comment section (the same thread as the previous article linked above) of a YouTube video by Dr. Leighton Flowers (which I participated in). This conversation is breathtaking in regards to the level of inconsistency and the amount of argumentation from those on the other side that was not substantiated. I believe this discussion showed the gross holes in Dr. Flowers’ position on Romans 8:28-30, while also showing that, when your ultimate goal is to hold a position and not to hold a high view of Scripture, you will do what you can to do that, even if it means that you dismiss thoughtful argumentation without addressing it. I believe this can cause an individual to twist the Scriptures. Also, I felt as though my argumentation did not receive a proper treatment as the points of contention were not addressed in their fullness or in their context. I found many times that the responses were only to parts of my statements and they did not address what I was actually saying, but rather addressed what was thought to be implied by selected parts of what I was saying (whether or not these presumed implications were accurate is a different story). By the end, though I very much desired to thoroughly address every single one of the arguments presented, I did not because 1) they were off of the topic and 2) if I were to address every point, there would be an unending trail of unrelated topics; I certainly do not have the time to participate in a conversation in which, though I attempted to stay on topic, my opponent does not. I think the conversation speaks volumes on its own. (Note: There may be grammatical mistakes in the conversation below. This is because I wanted to take the conversation as it was.)
[Edit (6/18/18): Concerning the descriptive reading of the conditional statements in Romans 8:17 (as I addressed below), see the chapter in Dan Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics in which he lays out the category of conditional statements called “Evidence-Inference” (the section on that particular category starts on page 683). This verse is cited as the first example for this category because of the first conditional statement in the verse; my argument is that the context, including the use of the Evidence-Inference conditional statement which is found a few words before (and is part of the same sentence/thought), indicates that suffering is an evidence that we are heirs/children of God.
This is the citation:
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 679-683.]
Here is the conversation:
Amyra Batya
@Calvinist Klein You said:
Oh I wasn’t comparing it. It was an example to illustrate that the word “and” doesn’t necessitate (not in English or Greek and I would assume not in the Hebrew) an order.
I always felt that way about Romans 8:29-30 with the word “also,” but Calvinists insist it’s an “unbreakable golden chain of ordo salutis.” I agree with Leighton that Calvinists totally miss Paul’s point.
Romans 8:29-30 “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose. 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. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.”
He’s not teaching a lesson on ordo salutis, and I wish Leighton had a chance to explain this in depth. Foreknew doesn’t automatically mean “foreknew before the foundation of the world.” Rather, it just means those God “knew before” (i.e., the OT saints). Like at Romans 11:2, where it says “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.”
Paul says God will work all things out to our good, and he proves this by showing how God worked all things out for the OT saints. He predestined them to be conformed to Christ’s image, just as we look forward to our future destiny of being conformed (see Rom 8:23-25; we know the second one becomes a believer, he is destined to be perfected in Christ).
The fact that Paul then says “so that He might be the firstborn among many brothers” suggests he’s thinking about past generations who looked forward to their Messiah’s coming. God called these OT believers into service and sanctification, just like He did with us when we believed. He justified them by His grace, through their faith, just like He did us. And He glorified them when they passed into eternity, just like He will one day glorify us.
Then Paul goes into how blessed and secure we are because of God’s faithfulness to His promises, which is the perfect segue into Romans 9. Because, the logical question at the end of Romans 8 is “If God is so faithful, and His promises so certain, then how did the Jews — God’s own people who bore His covenant — end up in such bad shape?” I think Paul anticipates that question and answers it in Romans 9-11.
Eric Rogers
The “chain” ends with this group already glorified. I cannot tell you how often Calvinists quote this verse and say “glorifieS” as if it is a promise to the elect; so long as you add your own words to make it say what you wish.
Amyra Batya
Exactly, Eric. “Glorifi-ed” doesn’t fit their systematic, lol.
Calvinist Klein
Hey Amyra! You gotta join one of these discussions sometime soon! I miss talking 🙂
I always felt that way about Romans 8:29-30 with the word “also,” but Calvinists insist it’s an “unbreakable golden chain of ordo salutis.” I agree with Leighton that Calvinists totally miss Paul’s point.
There’s much more going on here than just the redundant use of word “kai” (or also). Even if there was no order (which I would argue that there is) it would still be unbreakable (i.e. there is no one that experience[s] one of the actions that Paul is discussing here that will not experience the last action). Below I have pasted the relevant section from Wallace’s grammar textbook that also uses Romans 8:30 as an example and discusses it.
B. Demonstrative Pronouns
1. Definition and Terms Used
A demonstrative pronoun is a pointer, singling out an object in a special way. The three demonstrative pronouns used in the NT are οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος, and ὅδε. (This last one is rare, occurring only ten times.) οὗτος regularly refers to the near object (“this”), while ἐκεῖνος regularly refers to the far object (“that”). There are exceptions to this rule in that both demonstratives sometimes function like personal pronouns. As well, they sometimes “violate” the general rules of concord that pronouns normally follow. Such exceptions are often freighted with exegetical significance.
2. Functions
…
c. Unusual Uses (from an English perspective)
The following categories of usage are unusual in that the pronoun seems to be unnecessary (redundant), or is lacking in concord with its antecedent, or is used for some other reason. Most of the uses, however, are normal in terms of the pronoun having its full demonstrative force.
1) Pleonastic (Redundant)
Occasionally a demonstrative is used when no ambiguity would result if it had been deleted. This especially occurs in the nominative case: The demonstrative repeats a subject just mentioned (usually a substantival participle), even though the verb is not introduced until after the pronoun. In effect, the pronoun resumes the subject that is now separated from the verb by the participial construction. The pronoun is called pleonastic, redundant, or resumptive. In such cases, the pronoun is usually best left untranslated. However, at times, it has great rhetorical power and the English should reflect this.
…
Rom 8:30 οὓς δὲ προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἑκάλεσεν· καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν, τούτους καὶ ἑδικαίωσεν· οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν
and the ones whom he predestined, these he also called; and the ones whom he called, these he also justified; and the ones whom he justified, these he also glorified
The usage here seems to be emphatic and not merely resumptive. The idea is that the very ones whom God predestined, called, and justified are also glorified. The compounding of pronouns thus has a dramatic effect: No one is lost between the eternal decree and the eternal state.
{Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 325-330.}
Now, about what you said:
He’s not teaching a lesson on ordo salutis, and I wish Leighton had a chance to explain this in depth. Foreknew doesn’t automatically mean “foreknew before the foundation of the world.” Rather, it just means those God “knew before” (i.e., the OT saints). Like at Romans 11:2, where it says “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.”
I have watched his videos on this and have seen discussions. Concerning the word, προγινώσκω, the BDAG lists Romans 8:29 under the usage “choose beforehand.” Romans 11:2 is listed here too. We could discuss how it used with God as the subject as well. There is a usage that is “know from time past,” but it is a minority usage that only has one occurrence listed under it, which is Acts 26:5. I would disagree that Paul is limiting the discussion here to an example of something God did with OT saints in time past. We don’t have a mention of a saint in the discussion in the immediate context. I would say that it applies to OT saints in the same way it does to us though (just as God has consistently justified all saints through faith alone). The last individuals mentioned are “the according to purpose called ones are” (τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν).
Paul says God will work all things out to our good, and he proves this by showing how God worked all things out for the OT saints. He predestined them to be conformed to Christ’s image, just as we look forward to our future destiny of being conformed (see Rom 8:23-25; we know the second one becomes a believer, he is destined to be perfected in Christ).
Do you see conformation as just the glorification? Does it include the sanctification process?
The fact that Paul then says “so that He might be the firstborn among many brothers” suggests he’s thinking about past generations who looked forward to their Messiah’s coming. God called these OT believers into service and sanctification, just like He did with us when we believed. He justified them by His grace, through their faith, just like He did us. And He glorified them when they passed into eternity, just like He will one day glorify us.
Then Paul goes into how blessed and secure we are because of God’s faithfulness to His promises, which is the perfect segue into Romans 9. Because, the logical question at the end of Romans 8 is “If God is so faithful, and His promises so certain, then how did the Jews — God’s own people who bore His covenant — end up in such bad shape?” I think Paul anticipates that question and answers it in Romans 9-11.
How does that suggest that he’s thinking about past generations?
Eric: The “chain” ends with this group already glorified. I cannot tell you how often Calvinists quote this verse and say “glorifieS” as if it is a promise to the elect; so long as you add your own words to make it say what you wish.
Amyra: Exactly, Eric. “Glorifi-ed” doesn’t fit their systematic, lol.
LOL I have never heard a Calvinist quote it with glorifies (with an ”S”). Nevertheless, it is a promise to the elect. No one is adding any words here. We have absolutely no problem with the text here. It fits well (if anyone has a problem with it, it ain’t us lol). That is because it is certain from God’s perspective. This is what is known as the Proleptic (futuristic) aorist. Wallace covers this in his grammar textbook and uses Romans 8:30 (again) as an example. I have posted the relevant section below:
VI. Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist
A. Definition
The aorist indicative can be used to describe an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed. This usage is not at all common, though several exegetically significant texts involve possible proleptic aorists.
B. Clarification
An author sometimes uses the aorist for the future to stress the certainty of the event. It involves a “rhetorical transfer” of a future event as though it were past.29
C. Illustrations
Mark 11:24 πάντα ὅσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε, πιστεύετε ὅτι ἐλάβετε, καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν.30
Whatever you pray and ask for, believe that you have received [it], and it will be yours.
John 13:31 λέγει Ἰησοῦς· νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ.
Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified and God is glorified in him.”
***Rom 8:30 οὓς δὲ ἑδικαίωσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν****
those whom he justified, these he also glorified
The glorification of those who have been declared righteous is as good as done from Paul’s perspective.
Rev 10:7 ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, καὶ ἐτελέσθη τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ31
whenever he is about to sound [the trumpet], then the mystery of God is finished
Cf. also Matt 18:15; John 15:6; 1 Cor 7:28; Heb 4:10; Jude 14.
For some possible but debatable examples, cf. Matt 12:28;32; Eph 1:22 (ὑπέταξεν); 2:6 (συνεκάθισεν); 1 Thess 2:16.
{Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 563-564.}
Amyra Batya
@Calvinist Klein Sorry, but I don’t know Greek and I don’t have any reason to trust Wallace’s Calvinist “interpretation” of it, especially since the Calvinist interpretation of scripture has differed from the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars throughout Church history.
To be honest, I think Calvinists use Greek, not to understand the text, but to obscure it. I’m sure the translators know the Greek better than you do; and they picked those English words because those are the words that are most accurate. But, sometimes Calvinists don’t like what the English plainly says, so they go running to the Greek and pretend the Greek is saying something decidedly more “Calvinistic” than the English, which is nothing but a form of self-deception.
The Holy Spirit gave the Word to us in plain language, translated into every language, so if it can’t be understood, plainly and simply, in one’s own native tongue (or, if we all need a lesson in Greek because our English translation doesn’t really mean what it plainly, and repeatedly says) then, something is very fishy there, lol.
I’m afraid, if you want to convince me that Calvinism is true, you’re gonna have to do it in English. And, if you really have the truth, that shouldn’t be a problem.
…there is no one that experience one of the actions that Paul is discussing here that will not experience the last action.
That may be true, since we’re talking specifically about people who love God. But, there’s nothing in the text that necessitates that God’s foreknowing of the people being discussed was “before the foundation of the world,” or that their love for Him is the result of some mysterious “eternal decree” rather than their own choice. Calvinists must presume all of that and read it in.
Concerning the word, προγινώσκω, the BDAG lists Romans 8:29 under the usage “choose beforehand.”
I’m a simple girl, Calvy-Klein. And it seems to me that, if the word “choose” was the most accurate translation of προγινώσκω in this context, then that’s the word the Biblical translators would have used. I don’t know of any Bible translation that says “For those whom He chose before the foundation of the world, He also predestined to be conformed…”
Perhaps you Calvinists should do as the Jehovah Witnesses did? Write your own Calvinist Bible with all the “corrections” you want to make to the text (and maybe even a few omissions)?
We don’t have a mention of a saint in the discussion in the immediate context.
We don’t need that if Paul’s saying what I think he’s saying. Imagine he’s talking to you over tea, in your living room. He’s telling you to walk the good walk, that he knows it’s a struggle, but you have so much future glory to look forward to.
He then adds: “…and we know that, for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For (i.e., because; or, we know this because) those whom He knew before, He also predestined to be conformed…”
He doesn’t need to have mentioned them within the last five minutes in order to use them to illustrate his point, does he? Of course not.
“the according to purpose called ones are”
And it’s never been established that “called” means “called, before the foundation of the world, to be saved” or that God’s “purpose” means “God’s plan to elect a certain people unto salvation.”
Do you see conformation as just the glorification? Does it include the sanctification process?
My understanding is sanctification is setting yourself apart; that process begins in this life. And being conformed to Christ’s image would definitely be under the umbrella of glorification. Especially, in this context, when Paul just got through talking about the future we look forward to:
“…but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this HOPE we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we WAIT for it with patience” (Rom 8:23-25).
Adoption to sonship (i.e., the redemption of our bodies) sounds pretty glorious to me. He talks about that just before the passage we’re discussing, so it makes sense the glory he’s referring to at v29 is that which he was discussing at v23-25.
How does that suggest that he’s thinking about past generations?
“…so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.”
“Would be” suggests Paul’s going into the past and looking forward (i.e., from the perspective of the OT saints) to Christ.
In his commentary on Romans 8, Leighton puts it this way: “Consider the fact that he is speaking about what Christ ‘would be,’ which suggests that Paul still has the saints of old in focus here. Why would Paul speak of future generations being conformed to the image of Christ so that He ‘would be the firstborn of many brethren’ if He was already the firstborn prior to this discourse?” (Commentary on Romans 8:28-39, soteriology101.wordpress.com)
Nevertheless, it is a promise to the elect. No one is adding any words here.
But, as we discussed at the beginning, you did have to change the words from “those He knew beforehand” to “those He choose beforehand” didn’t you? So, I think you are having trouble with the plain reading.
That is because it is certain from God’s perspective.
I like Leighton’s answer to that one:
“Calvinists are forced to interpret Paul’s use of the past tense as meaning ‘it is as good as done because it is predestined.’ But the text never says this is Paul’s intention. The Calvinistic commentator should take into account Paul’s usage of the same term earlier in the chapter as a future tense hope for believers. For example, notice Paul’s reference to the future glorification in Romans 8:17:
‘…and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.’
“He does not speak of glorification as a past-completed action in reference to the believers in his day. In fact, he seems to qualify their being glorified upon the condition that they persevere through the suffering that is to come. If it is ‘as good as done’ due to God’s predetermination, then why would Paul make such a qualification and use the future tense of the same verb? Further, Paul goes on to speak of the eager expectation of the glorification that is to come in verses 22-25:
‘For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.’
“Are we to believe that Paul shifts from speaking of glorification as a future hope for those who persevere, to speaking of it as a past and already completed action even for those who have not yet been glorified? Or could it simply be that Paul has the saints of old still in full view as he makes his case for the trustworthiness of God throughout all generations? This certainly seems to be the simplest and most basic understanding of the Apostle’s words in this context” (Commentary on Romans 8:28-39, soteriology101.wordpress.com).
Calvinist Klein
@Calvinist Klein Sorry, but I don’t know Greek and I don’t have any reason to trust Wallace’s Calvinist “interpretation” of it, especially since the Calvinist interpretation of scripture has differed from the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars throughout Church history.
Dr. Dan Wallace has most likely the most well-known, well-respected greek grammar books of our day. He not only teaches the language and is a scholar of it, but he deals in the preservation, study, and record-keeping of New Testament manuscripts; he is also a scholar in the field of textual criticism (something that is an interest of mine). He is one of the most renowned Greek scholars of our day and is an expert on the development and history of the Greek language. And he is not just a rogue scholar, but he is active and public [in] the field. He’s consistently stating and applying rules of grammar and syntax to the New Testament texts. I think it’s more than safe to say that an excerpt from a well-respected greek grammar/syntax textbook is not a calvinist interpretation, especially when there is a grammatical/syntactical basis for saying what he says. As far as the Church History comparison, that could be said of anyone. Having studied Church History (as I continue to do), being different than a lot of the figures in CH is a good thing (if one is aware of all of the craziness that they believed) lol. CH is a mixed bag in and of itself. I want to be faithful to what Scripture says and tremble over His Word since that is what we will be held accountable for.
To be honest, I think Calvinists use Greek, not to understand the text, but to obscure it. I’m sure the translators know the Greek better than you do; and they picked those English words because those are the words that are most accurate. But, sometimes Calvinists don’t like what the English plainly says, so they go running to the Greek and pretend the Greek is saying something decidedly more “Calvinistic” than the English, which is nothing but a form of self-deception.
The Holy Spirit gave the Word to us in plain language, translated into every language, so if it can’t be understood, plainly and simply, in one’s own native tongue (or, if we all need a lesson in Greek because our English translation doesn’t really mean what it plainly, and repeatedly says) then, something is very fishy there, lol.
I’m afraid, if you want to convince me that Calvinism is true, you’re gonna have to do it in English. And, if you really have the truth, that shouldn’t be a problem.
Having spoken with me and getting to know me, I would hope that you wouldn’t think that about me. I hope you wouldn’t think that I would do that. I promise that I am a student of Greek because I want to understand what the apostles wrote. I have heard it put this way: reading the bible without knowing the original languages is like kissing your bride through a veil; if you learn the languages, you can remove that veil. I want to know, without hinderance, what the Spirit of God moved the apostles to write. I recognize that the bible was not written or inspired in english, so I don’t make the english language the standard, although it is where I start. It has been amazingly helpful too. Koine Greek is wayyyyyy more nuanced than english is (there is no such thing as a perfect translation). With that said, it needs to be handled consistently and carefully. I do not wish to obscure anything, but to bring clarity.
Also, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The same rules of grammar and syntax that I apply in these texts that we have discussed, I apply in my conversations with Roman Catholics on the topic of Justification by Faith Alone when establishing the biblical teaching and refuting their false teachings. I have to be consistent in all areas. If you see me using a double standard in applying these rules, please let me know. I also used these rules when refuting the claim that the (heresy of) Kenosis was in Philippians 2:5-11. I also used them to demonstrate that the Logos is not the Father in John 1:1 and on. I will be using them in June to demonstrate to the Church of Christ that they are not in line with Scripture since they are unapologetic pelagians and hold to a false gospel. These rules apply across the board.
The translators certainly do know the language better than I do. I am still new to the languages compared to them. I do not know a Calvinist that runs to the greek to try to confuse people (I hope you don’t think that of me). I don’t at all disagree with most translations and the words that they use. All translations that I know of are capable of adequately conveying the knowledge that is necessary for salvation. I grew up with an english bible and I still read one. As a matter of fact, the BDAG lexicon is the standard lexicon in New Testament studies. It’s utilized by exegetes and translators. It includes so much data on each word used in the New Testament and in early Christian writings. I would recommend investing in it. I don’t fight against the translators, but I try to understand what they know and why they make the choices that they do in translation. I think we had a similar conversation over a year ago. What I would say is this: I would recommend that people that think that others are twisting the Scriptures should learn greek. Test what they are saying. It’s not helpful to the person who is (*no offense*) blindly denying what they are saying merely because people disagree or merely because they think a person is being influenced by tradition or is trying to deceive. (By the same token, people need not blindly accept what someone is saying, but investigate it!!). That argumentation really just boils down to ad hominem attacks that are baseless.
I don’t think convincing people of anything is completely a linguistic issue. People have pre-commitments to certain beliefs (calvinists included). They don’t want to let go of those beliefs for whatever reason. At the end of the day, only God can graciously change a heart to accept a truth that He has revealed. All we can do is urge people to be consistent, inform them when they are not, and lead by example.
…there is no one that experience one of the actions that Paul is discussing here that will not experience the last action.
That may be true, since we’re talking specifically about people who love God. But, there’s nothing in the text that necessitates that God’s foreknowing of the people being discussed was “before the foundation of the world,” or that their love for Him is the result of some mysterious “eternal decree” rather than their own choice. Calvinists must presume all of that and read it in.
Right, but I would add that it is those who love God and are called according to His purpose (not that one can go without the other or that there are those who love God and are not called). People who are not called according to His purpose have no part in this promise here. Neither are those who professed to love God at one point in the past, but now do not profess that. If we are correct about God’s action of foreknowledge here, that begs a question: When did he enter into relationship with these individuals? Was there a point in time when God entered into this relationship? If they were chosen beforehand (as the BDAG lexicon says in reference to Romans 8:29), what is that with reference to? Their coming to Christ, their birth, etc.? And We don’t read any of that into the text. If our understanding of the meaning of the words in the verse is correct, that’s what the text says. You and I disagree on what the passage means, but if we could demonstrate that we are correct (which I would argue that we can) then their love for God is a result of His foreknowing them, predestining them, etc. We of course make the choice to love Him, but our choosing that (over our natural inclination to hate Him) would be a result of the effectual call.
Calvinist Klein
“Concerning the word, προγινώσκω, the BDAG lists Romans 8:29 under the usage ‘choose beforehand.'”
I’m a simple girl, Calvy-Klein. And it seems to me that, if the word “choose” was the most accurate translation of προγινώσκω in this context, then that’s the word the Biblical translators would have used. I don’t know of any Bible translation that says “For those whom He chose before the foundation of the world, He also predestined to be conformed…”
You are conflating the translation of a word with its usage. A lexicon’s purpose is to give the meaning (usage) of a word according to its context biblically, historically, etc. (the BDAG is the standard of NT studies and does this excellently due to its use of historical Christian literature and resources). I am not talking about how a word should be translated, but what the word means in this context.
Perhaps you Calvinists should do as the Jehovah Witnesses did? Write your own Calvinist Bible with all the “corrections” you want to make to the text (and maybe even a few omissions)?
Please do not insult me. We’re friends here. No one needs to do that. I was convinced from my NKJV. We do not say that the Word needs to be corrected or taken from. Please do not forget that we believe what we believe because we are convicted from the pages of Scripture. If we allow you to claim that for yourself, please allow us to do the same (proving who is wrong is another story of course).
We don’t have a mention of a saint in the discussion in the immediate context.
We don’t need that if Paul’s saying what I think he’s saying. Imagine he’s talking to you over tea, in your living room. He’s telling you to walk the good walk, that he knows it’s a struggle, but you have so much future glory to look forward to.
He then adds: “…and we know that, for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For (i.e., because; or, we know this because) those whom He knew before, He also predestined to be conformed…”
He doesn’t need to have mentioned them within the last five minutes in order to use them to illustrate his point, does he? Of course not.
Weren’t you accusing us of reading something into texts? It seems as though there is a double standard (though we do not actually do that). I don’t believe those who originally listened to this epistle would have thought this because I believe it’s a stretch. There’s simply no evidence of this. I would challenge you to find lexical evidence of that interpretation. I’m not saying there is none (though I’ve never heard of any).
Also, the word “know” in verse 28 indicates (according to BDAG) that this is a well-known generally accepted/acknowledged fact. Even Thayer’s Greek Lexicon lists the use of the word in the verse under this usage. It doesn’t necessitate that it has been observed, nor have I seen lexical evidence that anyone sees that usage here in this text. The definition that Leighton uses is, “to observe and therefore perceive,” which he cited as being from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon (which can be found here: http://biblehub.com/greek/1492.htm; his article is here: https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/foreknew-foreseen-or-foreordained-or-formerly-known/#_ftn1). First of all, I did not see his definition in this lexicon as he cited it (he only cited the entry, but not anything else) in the blog where he went through Romans 8:28-30 (the expanded version which I linked above). I am assuming that he cited from section II (which is the only section in this entry that is relevant to the word οἶδα, as it is the perfect form of the verb, not the other section) and not section I (which is the word εἰδῶ, the aorist form and the primary word in this entry that carries the meaning of “to perceive” and the only word that has the meaning of “observe”- I do not know where “observe” came from in his definition). Section I is not at all relevant to the discussion of οἶδα in Romans 8:28. In the relevant section of the lexicon, there is one entry that is listed as “to perceive” and Romans 8:28 is not cited under this usage (II.2 in the lexicon). It is cited under the usage that I mentioned initially (II.1 in the lexicon). As a matter of fact, when the word is followed by ὅτι (which it is in Romans 8:28) it carries the meaning that “it is well-known, acknowledged.” That is why Romans 8:22 and 8:28 are both cited under usage II.1, not II.2. Thus, I do not see how Leighton properly took his definition from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, ESPECIALLY since “observe” is not found at all in section II (perfect form), but only in section I (aorist form, which is not relevant to what is found in Romans 8:28 because what is found in that section is not even the same word that you find in 8:28). For this reason, I reject Leighton’s definition of the word “know” outright. (Please note that this is all according to the specific lexical categories of the entry in lexicon that he cited).
According to BDAG, The word ὅτι, which is “for” in this passage, is a marker of discourse when used with the word οἶδα, among other words that imply sense or mental perception (no, my use of the word “perception” here is not in contradiction with the last paragraph that I wrote since I was discussing the specific lexical entries in Thayer’s that were titled “perceive,” as Leighton cited them, not the concept itself – this is BDAG I am looking at now).
Another thing: something I have always wondered about is if Paul were speaking solely about saints being glorified in the past, how does that jive with glorification in other passages (1 Corinthians 15:50-57 for example) when the dead are raised imperishable at the last trumpet? This is even referenced in Romans 8:23-25, which you referenced in your comment. I don’t think this interpretation is compatible with a thoroughly biblical eschatology.
“the according to purpose called ones are”
And it’s never been established that “called” means “called, before the foundation of the world, to be saved” or that God’s “purpose” means “God’s plan to elect a certain people unto salvation.”
I didn’t give any of those definitions. Please don’t straw man us. We would state that this means to choose for receipt of a special benefit or experience (as stated in BDAG), which is not an uncommon usage of the word for “call”. In connection with the words before and after that form the context, the result of the calling is evident. I would say the word “purpose” in the context means that which is planned in advance (divine purpose), as stated in BDAG. I pulled all of these from the relevant sections in the BDAG, which also cite this verse under the usages that I mentioned.
“Do you see conformation as just the glorification? Does it include the sanctification process?”
My understanding is sanctification is setting yourself apart; that process begins in this life. And being conformed to Christ’s image would definitely be under the umbrella of glorification. Especially, in this context, when Paul just got through talking about the future we look forward to:
“…but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this HOPE we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we WAIT for it with patience” (Rom 8:23-25).
Adoption to sonship (i.e., the redemption of our bodies) sounds pretty glorious to me. He talks about that just before the passage we’re discussing, so it makes sense the glory he’s referring to at v29 is that which he was discussing at v23-25.
Doesn’t the redemption of our bodies take place at the last trumpet, as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:50-57? How then were the OT saints already glorified?
Calvinist Klein
“How does that suggest that he’s thinking about past generations?”
“…so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.”
“Would be” suggests Paul’s going into the past and looking forward (i.e., from the perspective of the OT saints) to Christ.
In his commentary on Romans 8, Leighton puts it this way: “Consider the fact that he is speaking about what Christ ‘would be,’ which suggests that Paul still has the saints of old in focus here. Why would Paul speak of future generations being conformed to the image of Christ so that He ‘would be the firstborn of many brethren’ if He was already the firstborn prior to this discourse?” (Commentary on Romans 8:28-39, soteriology101.wordpress.com)
The verb for “be” is not a future tense verb though. It’s present tense. Even if it was, The text says εἰς τὸ εἶναι.
“εἰς τὸ + infinitive verb” (as we see here) is an articular infinitive construction with a governing preposition. It has three possible usages: 1) Purpose, 2) Result, 3) Epexegetical.
{Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 611.}
In this construction, we are talking about a logical cause/result relationship, not a past/future or any kind of time (temporal) relationship. None of these necessitate or even suggest the “future time” view. Instead, we were predestined to be conformed to the image with the purpose/result of Jesus being the firstborn (The One that has Preeminence, not firstborn as in a birth order) among many brethren. If we weren’t predestined, Jesus would not have any brethren.
“Nevertheless, it is a promise to the elect. No one is adding any words here.”
But, as we discussed at the beginning, you did have to change the words from “those He knew beforehand” to “those He choose beforehand” didn’t you? So, I think you are having trouble with the plain reading.
No, I don’t. As I stated before, be sure not to conflate the word with its usages/meanings. I didn’t change any words. I was merely explaining the usage/meaning of the particular word in Romans 8:29.
“That is because it is certain from God’s perspective.”
I like Leighton’s answer to that one:
“Calvinists are forced to interpret Paul’s use of the past tense as meaning ‘it is as good as done because it is predestined.’ But the text never says this is Paul’s intention. The Calvinistic commentator should take into account Paul’s usage of the same term earlier in the chapter as a future tense hope for believers. For example, notice Paul’s reference to the future glorification in Romans 8:17:
‘…and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.’
“He does not speak of glorification as a past-completed action in reference to the believers in his day. In fact, he seems to qualify their being glorified upon the condition that they persevere through the suffering that is to come. If it is ‘as good as done’ due to God’s predetermination, then why would Paul make such a qualification and use the future tense of the same verb? Further, Paul goes on to speak of the eager expectation of the glorification that is to come in verses 22-25:
‘For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.’
“Are we to believe that Paul shifts from speaking of glorification as a future hope for those who persevere, to speaking of it as a past and already completed action even for those who have not yet been glorified? Or could it simply be that Paul has the saints of old still in full view as he makes his case for the trustworthiness of God throughout all generations? This certainly seems to be the simplest and most basic understanding of the Apostle’s words in this context” (Commentary on Romans 8:28-39, soteriology101.wordpress.com).
From Wallace’s Grammar (standard, excellent, well-respected seminary grammar textbook), I already cited the Proleptic Aorist section that used Romans 8:30 as an example. Though I didn’t use the terminology that Leighton used (“…because it’s predestined”), his objection in the first paragraph failed in light of my previous citations of that. Also, “glorified” in Romans 8:17 is in the aorist tense as it is in verse 30, making Leighton’s claim that this is a “future tense” form of the verb completely false. Verse 17 isn’t emphasizing a time (temporal) aspect, but a purpose-result (logical) aspect since it is part of a ἵνα (purpose, purpose-result, epexegetical, etc.) clause. We suffer together with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him. It is cause and effect with no time (temporal) aspect in the verse itself. Thus, Leighton’s “future” time (temporal) objection here fails as well (EDIT: I am not saying that the context doesn’t indicate that the hope is future – as a matter of fact, I believe that I stated that below – what I mean is that, specifically, Leighton’s grammatical future-time objection, specifically from within the verse, fails because he tries to make a grammatical distinction between a word in vs 17 and 30 that doesn’t exist. The next verse refers to “present time,” which certainly indicates time in the context – there is no problem here, but I’m saying that the temporal aspect is not established in verse 17 itself, as he cited the verse alone and tried to make a point from it). On top of all of this, the word translated “glorified” in verse 17 is similar, but different, than that of verse 30.
As far as the conditional in question, does this mean that God’s plan will fail if we don’t go out and find suffering? No. We prove ourselves to be children of God if we suffer with Christ. I would urge Leighton to view this text descriptively of the regenerative work of God in the hearts of Christians, not prescriptively as something men must do in order to satisfy their part so as to gain something from God that was ultimately dependent upon the efforts of the man. All children of God will suffer in this way. We show/confirm ourselves to be the people of God when we suffer with Christ (I would also mention that Philippians 1:29 says that suffering for His sake is granted to us, not something we go and acquire – God prepared the good works that we’d walk in Ephesians 2:8-10). Also, we are predestined to be conformed to the image of His son. We would thwart the decree of God if the success of our glorification were at all dependent upon us, which would contradict God’s decree. We are called to make our calling and election sure (i.e. confirm it – 2 Peter 1:10).
Conceptually, glorification is certainly future. These two different words for “glorified” appear to be in use to convey the future hopes. In light of all of the arguments here and above (including the eschatological argument on glorification), the view held by Leighton Flowers is not the simplest/most basic understanding of the apostle’s words in this context. It appears to be not only not feasible, but also impossible. It seems to be snowball/gordian knot of errors (that are the result of previous errors in assumption) that gets bigger as it progresses.
Amyra Batya
Dr. Dan Wallace has most likely the most well-known, well-respected greek grammar books of our day…
So he can’t be wrong? His interpretation can’t be influenced by his bias and traditions? Lol. There’s a difference between knowledge and discernment or wisdom. This man has knowledge, but he obviously doesn’t understand God or the scriptures. If he did, he wouldn’t be a Calvinist.
CH is a mixed bag in and of itself…
Calvinism is not what the earliest church leaders taught. They taught against theistic determinism. It was the gnostics who taught that heresy. Go to Scroll Publishing YouTube channel. Look at “What the Early Christians Believed about Predestination and Free Will” and “What the Early Christians Believed about Eternal Security.” David Bercot quotes them. Quote after quote. We’re talking about the earliest church leaders who were taught by those who sat at the feet of the apostles. Calvinism is a lie.
What I would say is this: I would recommend that people that think that others are twisting the Scriptures should learn greek…
Not everyone has time to learn Greek, Calvy-Klein. That’s why the Holy Spirit gave the Word to us in our own languages. There is no scriptural basis for the belief that one must know Greek in order to fully understand God’s word. I trust that my God would not have inspired the apostles to use language that can’t be accurately translated such that THE ENTIRETY of His word could be understood by EVERYONE.
I should clarify that I never thought you were deliberately trying to obscure things. Calvinists don’t go around consciously thinking: “I’m gonna run to the Greek, like a common Jehovah Witness, in order to escape the obvious meaning of the text.” But, I do believe Calvinists are misguided and deceived by their own intellectualism.
The bottom line is I don’t know Greek. I know English. You know English and we have an English Bible. You must meet me where I am and convince me in the language we share in common. If you can’t do that, then there’s something wrong with your theology.
At the end of the day, only God can graciously change a heart to accept a truth that He has revealed.
Then why do you bother to debate? You’ll say God uses human interaction as the “means” (i.e., He justifies the means as well as the ends), but what does that even mean in a theistically-determined universe?
People who are not called according to His purpose have no part in this promise here.
People who LOVE God are called according to his purpose:
Romans 8:28 “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
Doubtless, you Calvinists think “called according to his purpose” means “irresistibly chosen and called unto salvation.” But, when I look up “called” and “purpose” together and read the contexts of the verses that come up, I find sanctification (i.e., saved people being called to holiness, good works, and following after Christ’s example; 1 Thes 4:7, 1 Pet 2:21; 1 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9). Even when I look up “called” and “gospel” together, I find the “calling” to preach.
So, God calls His people (i.e., those who choose to accept Him) to set themselves apart and do good works. It has nothing to do with picking and choosing who will be saved.
Was there a point in time when God entered into this relationship?
He wasn’t in an intimate relationship with you before you existed, Calvy Klein, lol. The Father was in an intimate relationship with the Son before the foundation of the world (not with you). The only reason you have intimate access to the Father is because you stand In Chist. And you weren’t In Him even one nanosecond before you put your faith in Him:
Eph 1:13 “In Him, you also, AFTER listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—HAVING ALSO believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise…”
Before this moment you were a child of wrath (Eph 2:3). You had NO intimacy with the Father. That would have been impossible because of His Holiness.
If they were chosen beforehand (as the BDAG lexicon says in reference to Romans 8:29)…
That’s what you and your tradition say. There’s no Bible translation I’m aware of that says “for those He fore-chose…” You can keep saying it if you want, but you’re obviously wrong, that’s why “fore-chose” ain’t in the Bible.
Amyra Batya
Calvinist Klein (Part 2)
You are conflating the translation of a word with its usage.
And if that was the way the word was used, and what it meant “in this context,” the English translators would have written: “For those whom He chose before the foundation of the earth…” But they didn’t. And they know better than you do. So, if you don’t mind, I’m gonna believe them, lol : P
We do not say that the Word needs to be corrected or taken from.
No, you just say we need to accept that “know” means “chose.” Smh. Lol. I’m sorry I was insulting, but you do seem to be trying to shoe-horn your tradition into scripture by changing the meaning. The English translators know how to convey the correct message to English readers. They also know the difference between “know” and “chose.” They would have translated that way if they believed that was the correct meaning. They didn’t, so you’re wrong.
Weren’t you accusing us of reading something into texts? It seems as though there is a double standard…
Are you telling me that in order to use the OT saints to illustrate his point, he HAS to have mentioned them within the last few paragraphs? Seriously? Is that the way normal conversation works, Calvy-Klein? Someone’s “reaching” alright, but it’s not me, lol.
There’s simply no evidence of this. I would challenge you to find lexical evidence of that interpretation. I’m not saying there is none.
Romans 11:2 “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew…”
He’s talking about the OT saints.
Also, the word “know” in verse 28 indicates (according to BDAG) that this is a well-known generally accepted/acknowledged fact.
Paul says “…And we KNOW…” Well, how would we KNOW? Through osmosis? Perhaps by psychic powers?
The only reason we KNOW is because it’s been observed. And when (prior to Paul’s time) would God’s lovingkindness to those who love Him have been observed? With the OT saints. The evidence is in the terminology. This passage doesn’t necessitate a Calvinist reading.
Another thing: something I have always wondered about is if Paul were speaking solely about saints being glorified in the past, how does that jive with glorification in other passages…
So now you’re going outside this letter and ignoring the way he describes glorification (i.e., as a FUTURE hope) in the IMMEDIATE context (Rom 8:17; 23-25)? Mmmmhm, lol.
Please don’t straw man us. We would state that this means to choose for receipt of a special benefit or experience (as stated in BDAG), which is not an uncommon usage of the word for “call”.
What would that special benefit be, Calvy Klein? Are you seriously tellin’ me you don’t believe “called according to his purpose” means “chosen and called until salvation”?
Doesn’t the redemption of our bodies take place at the last trumpet
Yes.
How then were the OT saints already glorified?
I don’t know what Leighton would say, but I think it’s pretty basic. We are glorified to a certain extent when we die (how can we not be gloried in Christ’s presence, being with Him in paradise? like the 24 elders worshiping at God’s throne, and all those people clothed in white). But there’s even more glory after that, when we are fully conformed.
Amyra Batya
Calvinist Klein (Part 3)
The verb for “be” is not a future tense verb though. It’s present tense.
I don’t know why you keep talking to me about Greek grammar. I don’t care what you and Calvy-Dan think of the Greek, so it might help you to stop wasting your time and energy.
In English the word “be” isn’t the future tense. “To be” is the infinitive and “be” is the present. And when you put the present tense “be” with the past tense “would,” as in “would be” it can easily be referring to the act of looking forward (into the future) from a particular point in the past:
“I started studying for the EPPP last month so that I WOULD BE ready to take the exam by the end of June.”
“I started packing way back in October because I know I WOULD BE moving to South Carolina by January.”
I didn’t change any words. I was merely explaining the usage/meaning of the particular word in Romans 8:29.
You’re saying foreknow really means fore-chose. You haven’t changed the actual Bible itself (you have neither the power, nor the authority). But you are trying to change the plain reading to conform it to your beliefs. Like I said, if it really means “fore-chose” that’s what the translators would have written in English so that we English speakers would properly understand it. And NONE of them do that.
Thus, Leighton’s “future” time (temporal) objection here fails as well.
Romans 8:16-18 “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, HEIRS also, HEIRS of God and fellow HEIRS with Christ, IF indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that IS TO BE revealed to us.”
Heirs are looking forward to a future inheritance AND he refers to the “glory that IS TO BE revealed in us.” He’s clearly talking about the future.
As far as the conditional in question, does this mean that God’s plan will fail if we don’t go out and find suffering?
I think he’s using the word “suffering” in a broad sense. I don’t think he’s trying to say every Christian must be flogged in the streets else he’s not an heir with Christ. I think the context makes it clear that this life is hard, no matter who you are. The struggle with the flesh is just that — a STRUGGLE. And it’s something we must all endure to one extent or another. He encourages us to do so with patience, knowing that one day it will be over and replaced with something infinitely better.
I would also mention that Philippians 1:29 says that suffering for His sake is granted to us, not something we go and acquire…
You assume “grant” means “meticulously preordained,” but the text doesn’t say that. A king “grants” an audience, not by dragging the person into His presence, but simply by sending an invitation. It is a privilege to suffer with Christ. But that doesn’t mean God predestined you to suffer.
…God prepared the good works that we’d walk in Ephesians 2:8-10.
Yes, God knows our talents, where we’ll be, and who we can influence. He has a job (i.e. a “calling”) for each of us and He grants us the necessary talents we need to accomplish it. It has nothing to do with meticulous determination of everything we say and do.
…the view held by Leighton Flowers is not the simplest/most basic understanding of the apostle’s words in this context…
Maybe not to you because you’ve been trained to see things another way. But, actually, I find it much more basic and much more simple than all the mental and verbal gymnastics Calvinists take us through to make their systematic work.
Your “theology” creates problems because it’s false. Instead of admitting it’s false, you just create new (and unbiblical) concepts to solve the problems: secret decrees that contradict God’s expressed word, decretive and prescriptive wills, general vs. salvific love, different types of regeneration (as described by the Calvies in this video), running to the Greek to escape the plain meaning of the English, and on, and on, and (tediously) on…
Lolol.
God is not the author of all this confusion.
Calvinist Klein
Are you able to join hangouts nowadays? I don’t mean recorded ones or anything like that. Maybe we could set up a hangout in the near future? I began typing a response, but after a couple paragraphs, I remembered why I hate the tediousness of comment boxes. At this point, I think there are problems with consistency, methodology, and presuppositions in what I’ve read that I would like to discuss in a hangout.
Edit: Also, I’d love a discussion on Church History!
Eric Rogers
+Calvinist Klein I’m game. Just give me plenty of notice. Sometimes my notifications in G+ are wonky. Hit me up on Facebook and I’ll get it for sure. Eric Rogers in Kalamazoo, MI
Amyra Batya
As we have repeatedly seen, Calvinism is rife in “problems with consistency, methodology, and presuppositions.” It is a flagrant, demonic attack on God’s character and holiness (I know you don’t personally intend it that way, but ultimately that’s all this “doctrine” is). Google hangouts isn’t my venue, but I have no doubt God will continue to expose the falsehood of Calvinism on that front and increasing others.
Calvinist Klein
Well, I would recommend to anyone that they come and read our entire conversation (as painful as that would be lol) here and see if what you’ve said is true. I would also urge all professing Christians to recognize that God’s immutable nature/character is the standard of morality. He is not subject to a standard apart from Himself. He is that standard. Once we have that set in place, we can begin to evaluate moral claims.
Eric Rogers
+Calvinist Klein When you say “He is that standard” can you appreciate why I as a non-Calvinist would might think that conflicts with the Calvinist view of God?
Calvinist Klein
I can definitely understand it. I would imagine that it would be because you and I believe different things concerning what the Bible teaches about the character of God. So you take your understanding and set it against what I believe. I think we’d have to start with a thorough study of what Scripture says about the character of God. And we could discuss that in depth soon 🙂 Btw I sent you a Facebook message last night! It may be in the “spam” folder or something.
Eric Rogers
Just found the message. Thank you.
Honestly, I don’t think it is about the character of God per se. I’m sure we would both affirm he is holy, just, righteous, love, etc. The hang-up for me is when Calvinists insist that he would hold us to a standard (the Law) and himself not live up to that same standard. Yet you affirm he IS the standard.
Calvinist Klein
Wait, I am confused about what you said. God is not the Law. The Law is a reflection of His character and nature (i.e. Matthew 5:48, 1 Peter 1:16, etc.). We would NEVER affirm that He does not meet that standard. That would be a contradiction because it’s based on Him. Perhaps we could discuss this tomorrow?
Amyra Batya
@Eric Rogers Of course it’s about God’s character. That’s the MAIN thing the Calvinism debate is about. It’s the whole reason people are so vehemently against Calvinism. In fact, even YOUR last objection boils down to God’s character… Think about the question you just asked him. You said “The hang-up for me is when Calvinists insist that he would hold us to a standard and himself not live up to that standard.” Basically, what your saying is this belief system makes God a bold-faced HYPOCRITE (and you’re absolutely right). That goes DIRECTLY to His character.
The Council 