For many, Romans 8:28-30 presents the strongest case in the entire Bible for the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election.
This text contains what many refer to as “the golden chain of salvation,” linking God’s foreknowledge from eternity past to the glorification of Christians in eternity future. It seems that if those whom God foreknew from eternity past are the same ones He brings to glorification in eternity future, then sovereign Unconditional Election is the only way God could bring this about.
Here is what Paul writes:
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified (Romans 8:28-30).
As can be seen, this text seems to strongly support the doctrine of Unconditional Election.
Calvinists on Romans 8:28-30
John Piper calls it “the most important text of all in relation to the teaching of Unconditional Election” (Piper, 5 Points, 58). Romans 8:29 begins by linking God’s divine foreknowledge with God’s predestination, and Romans 8:30 carries this predestination through calling, justification, and glorification.
It appears that Paul presents a “golden chain of salvation” from eternity past to eternity future, just as Palmer states:
What Paul is saying in Romans 8 is that there is a golden chain of salvation that begins with the eternal, electing love of God and goes on in unbreakable links through foreordination, effectual calling, justification, to final glorification in heaven (Palmer, Five Points of Calvinism, 32).
With just a cursory reading of Romans 9:29-30, it appears that Palmer is correct. It seems that Paul is saying that from eternity past, God had in mind a certain group of people whom He predestined to receive eternal life.
This group of people was called by God, justified by God, and glorified by God. Many note that even the word “glorified” is in the past tense, which seems to indicate that even when glorification is in our future, it is nevertheless settled and complete in the mind of God.
If our glorification and justification was settled in the mind of God through His calling and predestination from eternity past, then this text seems to irrefutably support Unconditional Election.
The Problem with the Ordo Salutis Romans 8:28-30
However, when Romans 8:28-30 is understood in context, not only does it fail to support Unconditional Election, but this text actually refutes it.
In some theological circles, there is an ongoing debate over something called ordo salutis, or “the order of salvation” (Sproul, Grace Unknown, 144).
The debate is basically about the logical order of events and decisions in God’s plan of salvation.
For example, while everybody agrees that justification precedes glorification, there is much debate about whether God’s decree to redeem humanity preceded or followed the human fall into sin. The option you choose leads to numerous ramifications about your understanding of God’s sovereignty, human freedom, and what (or who) initiated God’s plan of redemption.
One of the other issues in the debate over ordo salutis is in regard to God’s foreknowledge and predestination.
The Calvinistic Ordo Salutis looks like this:
Arminians, with their desire to maintain human free will, often say that God, in eternity past, looked down through time to see who would choose Him out of their own free will, and then it is these whom God predestined for eternal life. In this order of events, God’s foreknowledge logically precedes God’s predestination. Calvinists disagree, and say that such an order of events makes God dependent upon human choice. They argue instead that God knows what will happen in the future because He predestined, or foreordained, all that will happen (Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 36-44; Piper, 5 Points, 59-60).
Yet when Paul talks about the “order of salvation” in Romans 8:28-30, he does not follow the normal Calvinistic order. Instead, he follows the Arminian order. He puts foreknowledge before predestination.
In an attempt to explain this, Edwin Palmer explains that foreknowledge carries the idea of having a loving relationship with someone:
The word translated by the older versions as “foreknew” is a Hebrew and Greek idiom meaning “love beforehand.” … Paul is using the Biblical idiom of “know” for “love,” and he means “whom God loved beforehand, he foreordained” (Palmer, Five Points of Calvinism, 31-32; cf. Boettner, Predestination, 100).
The idea that God’s foreknowledge is best understood as God’s eternal love is correct, but this still doesn’t solve Palmer’s dilemma, that Paul places God’s foreknowledge prior to God’s predestination. Even with Palmer’s exegetical sleight-of-hand in substituting in new terminology for Paul’s words, he still cannot get around the fact that Paul has God’s foreknowledge (or eternal love) preceding God’s foreordination (or predestination).
A. W. Pink attempts similar gymnastics when he uses the word “for” at the beginning of Romans 8:29 to say that the phrase “whom He foreknew” points back to part of the last clause of Romans 8:28, “to those who are called” (Pink, Sovereignty of God, 172).
In this way, Pink is able to base God’s foreknowledge on the calling of God, thus maintaining some semblance of the preferred Calvinistic ordo salutis. But this just confuses things further, because then Paul re-reverses the order in Romans 8:30 by putting God’s calling after predestination. Furthermore, since Calvinists often equate God’s “effectual call” with Irresistible Grace and God’s predestination with Unconditional Election, A. W. Pink has just reversed the order of TULIP as well, by placing the “I” before the “U” (Vance, Other Side of Calvinism, 389). It gets very confusing listening to Calvinists try to explain Paul’s words.
R. C. Sproul also notes the difficulty in Romans 8:29-30, and tries to explain it away by stating this:
We notice in this text that God’s foreknowledge precedes his predestination. Those who advocate the prescient view assume that, since foreknowledge precedes predestination, foreknowledge must be the basis of predestination. Paul does not say this. He simply says that God predestined those whom he foreknew. Who else could he possibly predestine? Before God can choose anyone for anything, he must have them in mind as objects of his choice. … [So] in actuality Romans 8:29-30 militates against the prescient view of election (Sproul, Grace Unknown, 143. He later goes on to argue for the same meaning of “foreknew” as “fore loved” as Palmer uses above. See p. 145).
I am not sure if “militates” is the right word, as Sproul’s argument is much weaker than he believes. According to Sproul, Paul is simply saying that God knows whom He will choose before He chooses them.
This would be fine, except that most Calvinists argue the opposite, that God only knows whom He will choose because He first chose them.
According to the Calvinistic ordo salutis, predestination and foreordination come before foreknowledge and election. So just like Palmer, Sproul is right about what Paul seems to say, but is in disagreement with what Calvinists typically argue.
So does this mean the Arminian is right?
No.
Calvinists rightly criticize Arminians for saying that God looks down through the halls of time to see who will believe in Him for eternal life, and then He elects, chooses, or predestines those people to be the objects of His grace and love.
Calvinists say that this makes God subject to the will of human beings, and in fact, puts the whole plan of salvation at risk. I agree with what Boice and Ryken say on this point.
[Some teach] that God bases his election of an individual on foresight, foreseeing whether or not a particular individual will have faith. … [This] actually means that men and women elect themselves, and God is reduced to a bystander who responds to their free choice. Logically and causally, even if not chronologically, God’s choice follows man’s choice (Boice, Doctrines of Grace, 99).
After all, what if God, in looking down through the halls of time to see who would choose Him, discovered that, much to His dismay, nobody had chosen Him? God would have been bound by this foreknowledge to do what He foresaw; otherwise His foreknowledge would have been in error.
If God only looks forward in time to see what it is that He should be doing in regard to human salvation, then God is bound by what He foresees to carry it out, even if He defeats Him and His purpose.
Right about now, you may be feeling like this discussion of Romans 8:28-30 is getting off into the weeds.
On the one hand, we have seen that while some Calvinistic explanations of various words of this text do in fact teach what those words say, we have also seen that the Arminian ordo salutis better fits the logical order in which Paul lists these words.
Yet the Arminian ordo salutis creates vast theological problems for the interplay between divine sovereignty and human freedom.
How then are we to proceed? What is Paul saying? How can we understand this text?
The solution seems to lie in the middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism, which is discovered by letting Paul’s words speak for themselves, which we will look at tomorrow.
Until then, what are your thoughts on the ordo salutis debate? Are you familiar with it? Is it all new to you? Do you have an opinion? Do you even care?
If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.
That’s almost getting into quantum physics.
Some of the diagrams above look that way! Ha!
Well I have been taught it this way that God knows ALL possibilities of the outcomes, so he works his Good will in it through the Holy Spirit for his purpose which accomplishes his Will. There is nothing that happens in this world we live in that is not a surprise to God.
Yes, I could agree with that.
That is close to Molinism
Why aren’t you a molinist?
There is no such thing as time in the spiritual realm. God is above time divisions, that is strictly an earthly measurement. I’m definitely not for the Calvinistic interpretation, I tend to lean toward Greg Boyd’s teaching on Open Theism where God knows all the possible outcomes but leaves us with choice.
Jerrine,
Well, there may be time. A timeless deity comes out of Greek philosophy. I don’t know if they were right or wrong on this point. It becomes very philosophical.
All I know is that somehow in some way, God must be able to interact with us in time, because relationships require time.
I recommend William Lane Craig’s book: “Time and Eternity,” Exploring God’s Relationship to Time.
Time is in the spiritual realm because the tree of life in heaven produces a new fruit every MONTH.
I believe God gave me a free will,otherwise we could use the excuse God made me do it. I went to the neighbors house years ago and they were not home so I took one of there chickens. God knew I would do this but he did not want me to do this,if he did I done nothing wrong.
Yes, this is what Paul deals with in Romans 9 when an objector says that no one can resist God’s will. Paul pretty clearly refutes that idea.
So no matter what choice we make.. God knows all possible outcomes, nothing we do surprises Him.
Actually there is no such thing as “time” period. We use it as a marker. Time in the real sense does not exist.
OBJECTION! Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” This verse states that God made three things. “In the beginning(that’s time), God created the heaven(that’s space) and the earth(that’s matter). Time is not an illusion. Time is a reality created by God.
It’s that nasty little “time” problem again. God chooses us. It’s up to us if we choose God.
It keeps popping up, doesn’t it. I know I don’t understand time and it’s relation to God and us…
At one level: who cares? To the person on the street, this is just bickering about words. Even if God did make unchangeable plans in advance (which I doubt), then we still don’t know what they are for any one person.
But since you asked … I have no problem with God being constrained by our choices. He made the choice to give us choice. So sending Jesus to the cross was a big risk: it was entirely possible (if unlikely) that no one would choose Jesus. Now that would be sad. So was the fall of Israel then Judah and, of course, the Fall itself.
Maybe it is bickering a bit about words.
But if God controls and foreordains everything we do, then how are we also held responsible for what we do?
I don’t think God controls us like that. You’re right – the control would contradict too much of the rest of scripture. It would also make for a hardline God that atheists would (rightly) love to hate as it suggests He randomly hated them enough to make them unbelieve and so go to hell.
I was thinking more from the point of view of going out, sharing the gospel and making disciples. At a practical level, it shouldn’t make any difference to us. Maybe He’s making me think we have a choice …
Romans 9:13-23 addresses what you are referring to. God’s hatred is conditional (based on man’s fallen state), but His mercy is unconditional (not based on anything people have done or earned). But, it is not random or arbitrary. It’s based on His unsearchable will and His right’s over creation as our creator.
When I began researching the plausibility of Calvinism, my “null hypothesis” was, “Both Calvinism (elucidated by Dr. James White) and “libertarian free will” soteriological views were, in part, correct. Years later, I find that, perhaps, God intentionally predetermines a few to be, in a Calvinist’s sense, foreordained to be and do according to His will. Yet, the majority of the “saved” are at liberty to reject His grace. Actually, in the latter sense, I (at the present time) favor a Molonist view.
I glad I don’t have to be Arminian nor Calvinist to believe in salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. To believe in the eternal security of the believer. To believe that Jesus Christ died for all men, and believe what the Bible says, “That whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” My most concern is why does these brilliant men see that it so important to be either one? I still don’t see what draws these conservative scholars to accept Calvinism in the first place. This is beyond me.
Right. I am with you. I am glad there are other options. I don’t know why the brilliant scholars seem to require people to pick between the two (and only two) options.
To all:
According to Scripture:
If you believed on Christ during the preaching of the Gospel, the Bible says you are saved.
” For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” ( 1 Corinthians 1:21 )
” How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” ( Romans 10:14 )
If you weren’t looking for Him when He found you, then you are saved. ” But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.” ( Romans 10:20 )
If you believe on Him with all your heart during this preaching, then you are saved, ” And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”” ( Acts 8:36-37 )
According to these, if this has happened to any of you, all you need to do to *understand the Bible correctly*, is to *pick it up and read it*. You will eventually “get” it…it may take years, but God will reward your efforts.
“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:”
You are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, and He does the teaching, not men:
“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” ( John 6:45 )
” But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” ( 1 John 2:27 )
Best wishes, and may God bless you in the knowledge of Him and His Son.
Prognosis (foreknowledge) knowledge based on variable conditions. Subjunctive and deductive, ‘if, then’.
Our will is our own. We make our own decisions. But God knew our decisions before the world was made and made His plans accordingly.
If time does not exist then how can God say there will be time no more ? The modern concept that particle interactions are just as valid in reverse has run into difficulties time and time again (pun intended).
I have a suggestion, which is that Romans 8:28 – 30 is not mainly talking about our initial salvation…… It could help to look at it by going back to verses 16 & 17 (Rom 8): 1. “We ARE children of God” (fact) 2. “We are heirs of God” (fact) 3. “We are joint heirs with Christ IF indeed we suffer with Him THAT we may also be glorified together….” (condition) – more precisely a condition as to the timing of the manifestation of our glorification. With this in mind, we then go back to verse 28 which is talking about the sufferings mentioned in vs 17 (“IF we suffer with Him). So, doesn’t it then mean that IF (out of love for God – “to those who LOVE God” v 28) the Christian accepts and agrees to suffer with Christ, we then, at that point become “the Called according to His PURPOSE” (not “the called for initial salvation”). Ephesians 1: 9,10, 11 tell us what His eternal Purpose is: “to gather together all things in Christ”. So, do we become “the called according to His “purpose” when out of love for God we accept to suffer with Christ in order that we may (through suffering) be (practically) conformed to the image of His Son (vs 29). We THEN become part of or “called to” what God predestined (His purpose). i.e. we are not predestined to “salvation”, but through salvation we are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son (THIS is His purpose). I think this puts a whole new feel on the passage of vs 28-30, and I personally believe that this is what it means.
Hmm. I like this line of thought. I will have to chase it down a bit more.
This does seem to fit well with the overall line of thought in Romans.
“Sounds like” a correct track… aligned with the Truth and the Purpose of our Father.
Not saying the post isn’t either… 🙂
1.I do agree with this interpretation because the Calvinist suggestion that God predestined some to salvation and others to damnation totally contradicts the nature of God.
2. The idea that mans rejection of God’s offer would contradicts the sovereignty of God is absolute no sense. God is the sovereign Lord not a tyrant or a dictator. A “NO” from man would not affect God’s sovereignty at all. a true King is not affected or in any way threatened by anyone’s negative response.
3. Predestination is not for salvation, but rather to a specific mission, like Israel’s mission.
I like that. I think we tend to be a bit self-centered and individualistic in our theology. I take predestination to refer to those who are “in Christ” – a group concept rather than an individualist concept. So, God’s focus is on the body of Christ. He provided Christ in order to achieve that body. He gives grace and calls men, but He doesn’t force or manipulate anyone into loving Him.
My issue is with time itself. God, being the Creator is the only thing that is not part od creation. I see it as He sees all things at all times. He sees adam’s fall just as He sees the last day.
Yeah, it all comes down to how we understand time. Sigh. And that is a huge philosophical issue…
I think calling yourself an Armenian is just a very simple way to sum up the things that you have read and understood in your Bible/I also think that Calvinism is a slam on God’s character/I think some Calvinists would really rather twist the Bible scriptures than admit that maybe they’re missing something.
I just have to say how much I respect each and every one of you who have taken part in this conversation. This is probably the most civil and respectful discussion I have seen on a difficult theological subject. I’m doing research for a masters of theology class, and I have to say that more often than not the discussions turn into “biting and devouring one another” sessions.
You have all given me much to think about here and I’ll probably use this discussion as the meat of this mini-project. Thank you.
For those of you interested in reading more, I’m also looking at the following page, which also has some interesting thoughts/quotes to add to the pondering of this subject:
http://www.freewill-predestination.com/romans8.html
It appears to me that in the above article, the whole debate hangs upon the meaning of ” Foreknowledge”
For me this is settled by the words of Jesus
Matthew 7:21-23 New King James Version (NKJV)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me………”
What Jesus is saying is not that he had no knowledge of them for he is God and is omniscient. Therefore He must be speaking of another type of knowing them. Plus he uses the term “never” he never ( not ever) knew them , compare this to the words of Romans 8:29 ” For whom he did foreknow”
There are two groups of human beings , Those who God foreknows ( eternally) and those he never (eternally ) knew.
🙁 where can I find the rest of this?
You said you’d post something “tomorrow” but I can’t find a link or a reference to your proposal for a middle ground.
Before one can be concerned about any kind of “ordo salutis” once must understand that the term election in the Bible refers to calling and service, not salvation. The word adoption (as used by Paul in his epistles, not Christians in 2019) is the future redemption of the body, not salvation. The word predestinated (predestined) appears four times in the New Testament in a soteriological sense. In Arminianism and Calvinism man is predestined before the foundation of the world, via either brute force or foreknowledge to salvation. Both ideas are based on a bad premise and must be dismissed. In Ephesians and Romans, Paul is speaking those who are already saved, telling them that in the future they will be adopted. …to wit, the redemption of our body. Right now Christians have the spirit of adoption, our adoption is a future event and remember we are using the word “adoption” as Paul used it, not a Calvinist in 2019. Similarly when Augustine debated Pelagius and lost the first debate, he came back and won the second debate in the eyes of men, but his argument presumed an erroneous presumption about the will of man postulated by Pelagius. Likewise Arminius, a very devout Calvinist, was attacked by Beza even though he held Calvin’s writings in the same highest regard as that of Paul. This is problematic in and of itself. Grace is not a force. It is neither resistible or irresistible. God’s grace is just there, it’s ubiquitous. Our exclusive access point to receive the gifts associated with God’s grace is faith. Faith is not a work. Paul constantly contrasts faith against work in his writings. The Arminian v. Calvinist debate is an internal Calvinist squabble, dating back to Beza.
Thank you so much for writing this article. This topic has been of interest to me and my husband ever since we were in Bible School. We attended the Association Free Lutheran Bible School in Minneapolis. Whenever this Calvinism/Arminianism topic came up, I would always be raising my hand and asking a lot of questions. I tend to lean way on the Arminian side, so I’m eager to hear how you blend the two viewpoints. A few years ago, Calvinistic teachings crept into our church and it created so many problems and divisions causing many to leave the church. Thankfully, we are back on track focusing on simply loving God, loving others and walking in our Holy Spirit directed giftings, rather than worrying about whether we are one of God’s elect or not. I’ll have to try and find part two of this discussion now. Thanks for thinking deeply about these things and communicating in ways that we can actually understand. Blessings to you in Christ’s love.
Are you sure this is accurate: “…most Calvinists argue the opposite, that God only knows whom He will choose because He first chose them.”
I am not a Calvinist nor a Arminian. I am a independent, fundamental, dispensational Baptist. First, I want to say that this is beautifully written. Your words show truth and clarity. Second, I was recently discussing the beliefs of Calvinism vs Fundamentalism with a Calvinist, and apparently, Calvinists believe that God has programed humans just as a video game programer programs a game. He also believes that God forces us to make every decision we make, from cracking our knuckles, to sinning. For people that are so blind in the error of their ways, they would look at this and make some argument by taking scripture out of context, just like false doctrine always does. I appreciate the work you have done, but be ready to defend your views when they are attacked, my brother in Christ. Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
How can I get to the next page? And why did you divide your writing in this way? I don’t know how to find individual pages, you should want to include a way to jump from page to page
How can I get to the next page? Words mean everything and you have written with Spiritual precision and clarity. I would like to read the next page whereby you bring your toughts to an a conclusion.
I understand from scripture that all mankind since the fall of Genesis has a carnal nature inherited from Adam. Sin is an “act of will” to defy the law written upon our hearts by the Lord’s Spirit in our conscience. One must reach the age or capacity to “will” rebellion. A young baby has a carnal nature … however does not have the capability as a “baby” to “will rebellion” against truth written on its conscience … as the clock ticks, which soon changes.
Sorry about that, I submitted prior to proofreading: How do I advance to the next page?
Words mean everything, and you have written with Spiritual precision and clarity. I want to read the next page whereby you bring your thoughts to a conclusion.
I understand from scripture that all mankind since the fall of Genesis has a carnal nature inherited from Adam. Sin is an “act of will” to defy the law written upon our hearts by the Lord’s Spirit in our conscience. One must reach the age or capacity to “will” rebellion. A young baby has a carnal nature however does not have the capability as a “baby” to “will rebellion” against truth written on its conscience … as the clock ticks, which soon changes.
I truly can’t say I’m qualified to speak on this contention by Calvinistic and Armenian theology as regards the correct interpretation of Roman 8:29 &30. Except to offer the following.
When God created all the elements including mankind over the first six days in the creation story as recorded in the Book of Genesis, He concluded something quite marvelous on six different days. He said ‘ it is good!’
Of course He was commenting on His own wonderful handiwork. Now, I think in terms of our salvation he is saying the same.
This is because he authored it and He made it come into being, so too as we responded in faith to His call to receive Salvation, this then becomes exactly as He had planned it.
And so he says now on this seventh occassion, it is good, giving Himself full glory for the accomplishment of His own plan of Salvation.
It would be wise to consider the implication of this in terms of what Paul is explaining here in these verses. God’s plan accomplished is for His glory alone. Nothing more, nothing less.
Romans 8, and other chapters which mention predestination always mention first fruits as well, or “we who were the first to put our faith in Christ ” Eph 1 12
Romans 8
23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.
So it is always about the apostles, and other first century AD people that were the first to believe in Jesus. Problem solved. Calvinists reject this obviously.