Those who are predestined are called, those who are called are justified, and those who are justified are glorified. To think that such a passage could include a proviso that 'those whom he called, he also lamented when they left' is to ignore the entire progression of Paul's thought.
- Doug Wilson, After Darkness, Light, p. 146
3 comments:
The problem is that the quotation that you site omits foreknowledge. The previous verse (Romans 8:29) starts the logic with foreknowledge, not predestination: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined..." (ESV). The word "also" shows that foreknowledge and predestination are not synonymous. And that, in my humble opinion, is where Calvinism fails.
Wayne Grudem speaks well of the issue you raise, Mr Ellison:
"But this verse can hardly be used to demonstrate that God based his predestination on foreknowledge of the fact that a person would believe. The passage speaks rather of the fact that God knew persons ("those whom he foreknew"), not that he knew some fact about them, such as the fact that they would believe. It is a personal, relational knowledge that is spoken of here: God, looking into the future, thought of certain people in saving relationship to him, and in that sense he "knew them" long ago. This is the sense in which Paul can talk about God's "knowing" someone, for example, in 1 Corinthians 8:3: "But if one loves God, one is known by him." Similarly, he says, "but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God ..." (Gal. 4:9). When people know God in Scripture, or when God knows them, it is personal knowledge that involves a saving relationship. therefore in Romans 8:29, "those whom he foreknew" is best understood to mean, "those whom he long ago thought of in a saving relationship to himself." The text actually says nothing about God foreknowing or foreseeing that certain people would believe, nor is that idea mentioned in any other text of Scripture."
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/misunderstandings.html
Thank you, Zach. It is hard to argue with Wayne Grudem; his Systematic Theology is probably my favorite.
Nonetheless, there seems to be a very real tension in the Scriptures that both hyper-Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism seem unwilling to maintain. We want to resolve the issue, but it may be that resolving the issue does violence to the text.
I am currently preaching through 2 Peter. Chapter 2:20-21 strongly indicate that one can "have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and "known the way the way of righteousness" and yet "turn back" so that "it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness." Hebrews 6 and 10 give similar warnings. I believe that any attempt to say that the dangers are not real for true believers fails to take into consideration that these letters were addressed to believers.
That is only arguing one side of the issue, of course. When I preach on Ephesians 1 and other passages, I emphasize the truths of election and predestination, though it seems that the corporate nature of the Body, especially in Ephesians, is an important aspect of election and predestination, rather than a totally individualistic approach, as Robert Shank argued in his book Elect in the Son some decades ago. Yet, other passages seem to focus on individuals: "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48 ESV).
I'm just not sure that we can close the book on this so easily, and perhaps not even with Shank's approach.
It is certain
that God knows all things from the beginning,
that He is sovereign though His purpose may be rejected by men (Luke 7:30),
that He wants all men to come to repentance though that does not happen (2 Peter 3:9), and
that in His sovereignty, while He allows men to reject His purpose for them, He will simply not allow some things to happen (1 Corinthians 10:13).
In His sovereignty, He does not micromanage everything. He delegates authority that is sometimes abused, but in the end His eternal purpose will never be thwarted and it will be seen that He has worked all things together according to His purpose (Romans 8:28-29).
That's far from the final word. I think both Arminianism and Calvinism emphasize some passages while trying to explain away other passages. I don't think that either school of thought can be dismissed easily. We don't have to answer for, fully understand or explain what God does in predestination, but, in the final analysis, we are totally responsible and accountable to Him for what we do with what He has revealed to us (Romans 1:20).
Post a Comment