Lookin' Through the Corridor of Time - Or Not

Without question, one of the biggest battleground texts in the entire Bible between predestinarians and non-predestinarians is Romans 8:29-30. What does this passage teach? Does it teach that God looked through time and then predestined certain individuals based on what he foresaw? Or does it teach that God chose to know certain individuals in a salvific sense and thus predestined them based upon His choosing to know them relationally? There is also a third (albeit rare) interpretation of the passage that holds that the passage is talking only about those whom had lived and subsequently died in Christ before the epistle to the Romans was written. For sake of brevity, I will only be treating the two major interpretations, since the third also defaults to something very similar to the advance prescience view. Does the passage teach an advance prescience of God, who looks through time and then predestines based on what He has seen and infallibly knows? Or does it teach sovereign election here?

The text in question reads, “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.” -Romans 8:29-30 (ESV)

The battle is fought mainly around the word “foreknew.” This word by itself in our English translations of Scripture can easily be interpreted in either manner to support either interpretation. The problem is that in English we have the words “know” and “knew,” and these words can mean both “head knowledge” as well as “intimate relational knowledge” as well as “personal knowledge.” So the word can be used, and indeed is used, to mean “have knowledge of” as well as “to know relationally” or “to love intimately.” Scripture uses the latter quite liberally. Matthew 7:23 where Jesus says “I never knew you,” is a prime example. It is only when we look at a) what the Greek language states in the original writing, and b) the rest of the passage, does the proper interpretation come to light.

First, if we look at the Greek here, we see that every action word that Paul uses here is what is called an aorist active indicative. In English terms, these are active verbs that occurred in the past that have a permanent significance. Simply put, God is the active agent here and the words foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified are all the actions done by God. God foreknows, God predestines, God calls, God justifies, and God glorifies. And, whoever He has foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified stand in those states as well. Paul’s usage of the aorist here is an interesting choice; most likely used to show that the predestination of God’s elect is as good as done, since it is grounded not in our actions but in God’s actions. This fact alone speaks volumes against the advance prescience view since if this were talking about God’s omniscience the word foreknew would be a noun (and that still could swing to either view depending on interpretation - see 1Peter 1;2 for example), not an active verb; and if it were talking about God looking through time the action would be “looking” or “seeing,” as opposed to “knowing.” But it does not say that God looked and saw the actions of persons and that is His basis for predestining them. Simply put, if parts of speech have any say in the proper interpretation of this passage (and they do), the meaning is clear. God is making a choice to know certain persons. Those he foreknew. God chose to know people. God does not need to look through time to see and find out something that He already knows. He is God. He does not learn from outside sources by observation.

Second, if we look at what the verse is saying it creates major roadblocks for the advance prescience viewpoint. We can point out from the beginning of the verse that the passage is speaking about persons, not the actions of persons. It does not say “That which he foreknew.” Thus, it is not referring to God looking and seeing actions of persons. Namely, it is not saying that God looked and saw that certain persons would exercise faith. Faith would be an action on the part of the person. But the passage says that God knows persons themselves.

Next, we can point out that there is a problem with the advance prescience view here when we analyze the relationship between “called” and “justified.” Advance prescience advocates would claim that God calls everyone. Yet the passage here says that “…those whom he called he also justified…” Therefore, we can conclude that the persons who are called are also justified, which means this can only be referring to the regenerate and not the unregenerate, since the unregenerate are not justified. It cannot be referring to what theologians refer to as the external call, which is the preaching of the Gospel. Not everyone who hears the Gospel is justified. In fact, most people reject it.

We also can point out that predestination precedes calling in this passage. If calling preceded predestination, then a much better case could be made for the advance prescience view. We could then assume that predestination is based upon calling (even though the external vs. internal call would still be a problem). But the text places predestination first, meaning that it precedes calling. Since those who he predestines are called, justified, and glorified, we can then conclude that only those who are predestined are called. This creates the idea that not everyone receives this internal call. The advance prescience view claims that persons are predestined based on the faith that God knows they will exercise. But we can also conclude from the passage that not only are all the predestined called, but all the predestined are also justified and all the predestined are also glorified. Since justification is by faith, we conclude that only the predestined will ever have faith, since clearly from the passage, only the predestined are justified and only the predestined are glorified.

Herein lies the biggest fundamental difference between all forms of non-Reformed theologies and Reformed theologies. Reformed theology sees faith as the result of God’s predestination, not the cause of it. R.C. Sproul sums up the Reformed view. “Reformed theologians understand the golden chain as follows: From all eternity God foreknew His elect. He had an idea of their identity in His mind before He created them. He foreknew them not only in the sense of having a prior idea of their personal identities, but also in the sense of fore loving them. When the Bible speaks of “knowing,” it often distinguishes between a simple mental awareness of a person and a deep intimate love of a person. The Reformed  view teaches that all whom God has foreknown, He has also predestined to be inwardly called, justified, and glorified. God sovereignly brings to pass the salvation of His elect and only His elect.

Thus far, I have dealt directly with Romans 8:29-30, but I would be remiss to not point out that the advance prescience view suffers from drastic topical theological problems as well. Namely, if the advance prescience view is true, God is looking through time to get information on who will follow His plan of salvation. This is more than just a small problem. In short, this view has God gaining information from His creatures. This means that God, in a real sense, gains information from us. Gaining information is called learning. Does God learn from his creatures? I certainly hope not, because that means God gains information and learns from sources outside of Himself! That, I would assert is to make God imperfect and in all actuality, destroy His omniscience. If this is true, is God really perfect in all His ways and attributes?

We can also rightly raise the question: “What’s the point of predestination?” If God looks through time and sees who will come to Him and then bases His predestination on that, why does God need to predestine at all? Whether or not God predestines, these same people are going to come to Him either way, right? Advance prescience advocates may respond to this in one of two ways. The first way is to respond that God predestines the plan of salvation. He predestines those that will come to Him to glory. The obvious problem here as it pertains to Romans 8:29-30 is that it conflicts what the passage is saying. The passage is clear: “Those” He foreknew. And then, “those He predestined He also called…” It is speaking of persons here, not of a general plan. The advance prescience advocates would be correct to point out that the goal of predestination is the glorification of his people. They are to be conformed to the image of Christ. However, the passage indicates that God predestines persons to this goal, as opposed to predestining the goal and then the persons based on His prescience, knowing they will cooperate with Him.

The second manner in which the prescience folks can answer here is that God looks through time, sees who will cooperate with Him, and then predestines these people to hear the Gospel and be called to Christ. But this defaults to sovereign election and no prescience advocate should use this argument, as it proves the Reformation doctrine - the exact position they are kicking so hard to disprove. Does God predestine an advantage to the elect because He knows they will cooperate? How could this be anything other than sovereign election?

The main objections to the Reformed view of Romans 8:29-30 (as well as Romans 9 and Ephesians 1:3-14 and 2:1-10 for that matter) are that this view makes God arbitrary as well as a capricious despot. I will allow R.C. Sproul to answer this charge as the final word in this entry:

“Paul reminds the Romans of what God had declared to Moses: ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.’ The principle is that of the sovereignty of God’s mercy and grace. By definition grace is not something God is required to have. It is His sovereign prerogative to grant or withhold it. God does not owe grace to anyone. Grace that is owed is not grace. Justice imposes obligation, but grace, in its essence, is voluntary and free.

The ground on which God chooses the objects of His mercy is solely the good pleasure of His will. Paul makes this clear: ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will…’ (Eph 1:3-5)

That God chooses according to the good pleasure of His will does not mean that his choices are capricious or arbitrary. An arbitrary choice is one made for no reason at all. Though Reformed Theology insists that God’s election is based on nothing foreseen in the individuals’ lives, this does not mean that He makes the choice for no reason at all. It simply means that the reason is not something God finds in us. In His inscrutable, mysterious will, God chooses for reasons known only to Himself. He chooses according to His own pleasure, which is His divine right. His pleasure is described as His good pleasure. If something pleases God, it must be good. There is no evil pleasure in God.”