Skip to content

podcast 80 – Foreknowledge, Freedom, and Randomness

Play

Randomness and ForeknowledgeIf God foreknows all that you’ll do, doesn’t that imply that you have no control over how your life turns out? It just is going to happen as it’s already been known, right? And conversely, if you have any degree of control over how your life turns out, then how can God already know, with certainty, every last event that will compose your life? Two sorts of Christians have agreed that this idea of exhaustive and unchanging divine foreknowledge and (what philosophers call “libertarian”) human freedom are logically incompatible: Calvinists, and open theists. Calvinists simply deny that we have this sort of freedom, whereas open theists complicate their views about divine providence and foreknowledge to be logically compatible with it. Needless to say, there are serious scriptural disputes involved, but all I’ll say for now is that both sides think that they can make a strong case that their view fits with what the Bible teaches.

What’s open theism? Dr. Gregory Boyd does a good job explaining the basics of this theological and philosophical outlook here:

I’ve long been convinced that open theism is the better option, biblically, theologically, and philosophically. In my 2007 paper “Three Roads to Open Theism,” I explain my view that statements about future free actions are neither true nor false in advance, contrast it with some different open theist views, such as the view that all such statements are false.

The common accusation against open theists is that we “deny God’s foreknowledge.” There have been open theists who’ve said that God willingly declines to know some future facts, but open theists like Boyd, Hasker, Rhoda, and I affirm that at any given time, God knows all that can possibly be known – what has been, what is, and what will be. But we think that he’s allowed “what will be” to be incomplete. “The future” is to a large extent a realm of possibilities and (in-between) probabilities. Of course, God know all those as well. But here’s the point: the contents of God’s perfect knowledge change, as the reality he created changes, as some possibilities are ruled out and others are ruled in (become actual).

In this episode, you’ll hear my October, 2014 presentation at the Randomness and Foreknowledge Conference in Dallas, Texas. I had a great time at this conference getting to know (or to know better) various open-theists and anti-open-theists. In the presentation, I explain my view that arguments from truth are a greater threat to human freedom than are arguments from foreknowledge, and I argue against the all-false view about statements about future events that (as of now) may or may not occur. It’s a talk by a philosopher, for philosophers… sorry about that! You’ll want to view the Youtube version of this episode (below) if you can (and go full-screen), because it has all of my presentation slides, with some added information too. It is also available, of course, audio-only, in the usual places.

Thanks is due to the sponsor of this conference, the Randomness and Divine Providence project at Calvin College, and their sponsor, the John Templeton Foundation, and also to the conference organizer Dr. Thomas Oord.

You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.

Links for this episode:

  • Dr. Alan Rhoda (blog, papers) – in my view, Dr. Rhoda has done the most important recent work on open theism, especially on topics like time, truth, and providence.
  • Dr. William Hasker’s book God, Time, and Knowledge gives penetrating critiques of traditional attempts to show how freedom and divine foreknowledge are compatible, and argues that they are not. Dr. Hasker has done more than anyone to show the importance of open theism to problems of evil, in his books The Triumph of God over Evil: Theodicy for a World of Suffering and Providence, Evil and the Openness of God
  • Pinnock, et. al. The Openness of God is the classic source on open theism – it addresses biblical, theological, and philosophical concerns.
  • Dr. Greg Boyd’s 2000 book God of the Possible (kindle) is an excellent biblical and theological introduction.
  • Dr. Jack Copeland on Dr. A.N. Prior (1914-67) re-discoverer and inventor of temporal / tensed logics, at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Dr. Scott Davison, “Prophecy” at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – see this on Ockhamism, and how the various views about foreknowledge deal with biblical prophecies.
  • Dr. Norman Swartz, “Foreknowledge and Free Will” at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Dr. John Laing, “Middle Knowledge” (on the view called “Molinism“) at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Papers by Dr. John Martin Fischer – see the Philosophy of Religion section for his work on Molinism
  • A well-known proponent of Molinism in Dr. William Lane Craig, e.g. in his book The Only Wise God. Like some other American evangelicals, Dr. Craig has been harshly critical of open theism, and specifically of my and Rhoda’s work.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

55 thoughts on “podcast 80 – Foreknowledge, Freedom, and Randomness”

  1. Hi folks 🙂

    I have been pondering this episode a fair old bit, and I have to say I think that the will he / won’t he lie example pretty limiting. A more telling example would be, sorry for the crudeness, is your and my own conception biologically within our mothers. Is God “open” to an infinite number of human beings of which only a certain (albeit large) number come about? Maybe the answer to that is a simple “yes”, in which case move on to the next comment.

    But if it is no, the open theist thinks that we were specifically and uniquely planned (quasi-miraculously when you look at the odds), then his views are much less clear and difficult to keep consistent. What about the child born of rape? Or of adultery? Was the father (or mother) predestined to sin in order to bring about the pre-destined child? Both calvinism and open-theism would seem to struggle on this point.

    Either God intended you absolutely, and is willing to go via predestined sin to make you happen, or you are simply a kind of wonderful fluke. If it hadn’t been you, because the future was not settled, then it would have been another wonderful fluke.

    Is this too either/or?
    J

      1. Hi Dale,
        it would imply to me that you and I were not specifically planned by God. Even if we grant that God in his infinite omniscience of the possibilities always knew their could be a Dale and a John, it was always going to hang on a whole bunch of unsettled free human choices.

        We would of course still agree that he was and is delighted, being the Happy God as Piper calls him to discover us in our biological uniqueness.

        For someone who is used to thinking that God never specifically planned for them, then I would grant of course that this may not seem a big problem, or as serious an issue as the Reformed theology camp’s.

  2. David Kemball-Cook

    Very interesting, thank you Dale. I have been trying to make sense of these issues for a while, and had thought that open theism was the least worst way to go. I appreciated your ‘Three Roads’ paper, while not understanding all of it.

    So maybe we don’t have to give up on libertarian freedom after all, if we accept the omniscience of God? Three questions

    1) Did you define, or can we define, ‘libertarian freedom’? I don’t remember you defining it in the presentation. Something like ‘given all past history of universe, both C and not C are each possible’?

    Even if LF is compatible with the omniscience of God (suitably defined), is it compatible with causal determinism? Suppose someone built a ‘prediction machine’ able to predict everybody’s choices?

    2) How do you reconcile your view with biblical picture of God’s foreknowledge / foreordination / predestination, all the texts that Calvinists quote?
    Do we understand them in terms of ‘intention’ and ‘plan’, God’s role being that of a chess player or general?

    3) I think there are different varieties of open theism, and that you don’t agree with Boyd on everything. Is that correct?

    1. I’m not Dale, and definately not a philosopher or theologian, but I am an open theist, so I’ll give some answers from my perspective.

      2. Absolutely, as long as you accept that future events, or events that haven’t happened yet don’t exist and have no truth value to them, like the example given in the podcast about the answer to the question “is it true that the present king of France is bald,” well, the answer is neither true nor false, it’s not something that can have a truth value, so for example the question of “will I commit a sin tomorrow” has no truth value, so it’s not that there is something which God does not know, there is nothing TO be known in the future.

      3. I don’t think it’s compatible with causal determinism when it comes to humans, if every choice we make is causally determined, by some law of nature along with pre-existing conditions, then we can’t have libertarian free will, but if we believe that human’s cause their own choices, then that is a break, or extra input into the material world of cuasally determinate events. The problem is, we don’t even know if the physical universe is causall determined, given things like quantum indeterminancy (something which I couldn’t even begin to understand), much less human choices, so I think it’s reasonable to go with our undeniable intuition and subjective experience.

      4. What biblical picture? As far as I read the bible talks about God knowing some things in advance, and causing certain things to become, and having an escatalogical plan for the world, but it also talks about him changing his mind, saying that there will be different outcomes for different actions and putting it in the hands of people to choose the actions, being proud of choices individuals made, being dissapointed in individuals who could have done otherwise, having plans and changing them based on choices people make.

      do give a (obviously flawed, since one can never give a finite physical illustration that actually is analogous to God) analogy, if I plan to jog to the park, I can have various options in order to accomplish that plan, which I fully intend and will do, but which option I choose will depend on the situation which I learn about when I get outside and start jogging, I might take one route, I might take another.

      God can be 100% sure of certain outcomes, and 100% sure of his ultimate plan and purpose and that it will be accomplished, without knowing all the events which happen inbetween, there is nothing logically preventing that.

      1. David Kemball-Cook

        Thanks Roman

        I appreciate your answers.

        (Dale I would like your answers too please, when you have time)

        Re 2) thanks, I think I am coming round to an open theist view.
        Propositions about the future being neither true nor false makes sense to me.

        Re 3) I am not sure that causal determinism and ‘humans determining their own choices’ are incompatible.
        If I had a prediction machine, wired up to the neurons in your brain, I could predict what you are going to do, even while you believe you are making a free choice.

        But I take your point that such a machine may not be possible to construct due to quantum theory.

        Re 4), Yes I think you are giving the picture of God as a general / chess player.
        I am inclined to agree with this, that the Bible (mostly) shows God as being a very powerful actor on the stage of the universe, but maybe not actually ‘omniscient’ or ‘omnipotent’.

        But what I had in mind was verses like these

        For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
        Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Rom 8:28f)

        From verses like these it does appear that God predestinates and elects some people to be saved.
        If God has foreknown and predestinated all who will believe, then it is not up to us to
        believe or not. It makes no difference what we choose, because whether or not we are saved depends on God’s choice and foreordination.

        1. 3. Not due to Quantum theory, but do to the fact that we are free agents. If you could predict what I was going to do, then there is a fact of the matter of what I am going to do prior to the desicion I make to do it, meaning I couldn’t do otherwise, meaning it’s not really a “free Choice.” all my Choices are cuasally determined, then we don’t have free will, but I don’t know why we should believe that all of Our Choices are predetermined by laws of nature and material cuasality.
          4. The thing about the general/chess player analogy, is that the assumption is the chess player/general COULD lose, I dont’ think God can lose, but that doesn’t mean that he must know Things that cannot be known by their very nature.
          And yes it does still make God omniscient, since God knows EVERYTHING … If you’re going to say “well God doesn’t know if I’ll sin tomorrow” I’d say it’s impossible to know that, so you might as well say “God doesn’t know if its true that the present kind of france is bald, and thus is not omniscient.” …. Sorry, that simple is not a true OR false statement, the same With whether or not I’ll sin tomorrow.
          As for Romans 8:28, I don’t believe here it’s talking about individuals but rather a Group, God “predestined” Israel to be his People, but he didn’t predestinate each individual Israelite to be faithful. I think NT Wrights work here in Paul and the faithfullness of God is helpful, I mean if you og to the very next Chapter you have it contrasted With the “election” of Israel, the choosing of Jacob, but that doesn’t mean that God “predestined” Jacob to be faithful, he “predestined” that out of Jacob would come his People.
          I think that’s the much more Natural and Jewish way to read Paul.
          And not only that, it doesn’t contracdict the mountain of verses where God’s reaction to man Depends on Mans Choice, where God changes his mind based on mans Choice, where God gives man a Choice and leaves the out come open and so on and so forth.

          1. David Kemball-Cook

            Thanks Roman

            Re predestination, I accept what you say about the Bible showing God reacting to man, but I don’t know how you could read

            ‘For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate …’

            any other way than personal.

            Re determination, suppose that someone is really predictable by nature, eg that he always says yes if you ask if he would like £1000, whatever the time of day.
            So does the accuracy of my prediction of his choice invalidate his free choice?
            Just because I know what he is going to do, does that mean he does not choose freely?

            Re God’s ‘omnipotence’ and ‘omniscience’, if God’s plan depends on the free choices of individuals, and he does not know what those people will choose, then God’s plan COULD fail. You would think he would then use Plan B to
            accomplish his goal, but I hope you get my point.

            1. Well since Paul is talking about the Church, and comparing it to Israel, and considering Israels vocation was not personal, it was communal, and given the fact that the rest of the bible does NOT teach individual predestination, the most Natural way to understand Romans 8 would be that it’s talking about the chuch communally. You can’t read Romans 8 and not read Romans 9.
              What you’re talking about is not determination, it’s an extremely educated Guess, so lets say a guy always says yes if you ask him if he would like £1000, that is because the guy deliberates in his mind, and decides, Yeah, it’s probably a good idea, but there is no Natural Law stating he MUST choose £1000, he could choose not to take it, even if under no circumstance would he choose not to take it. That is not predestination, or forknowledge, thats a prediction, i.e. an extremely educated Guess.
              I don’t know if God’s plan DOES depend on the free Choices of individuals, for example, God could need perhaps only a few individuals to remain faithful to him, and he knows that, that will happen, given enough time, but that doesn’t mean that he forknows each individual’s Choices.
              I actually think God’s plan actually could have failed, Jesus was REALLY tempted by Satan, he could have taken Satan up on his offer, in which case God would have had to adjust in order to accomplish his purpose.
              But to me this doesn’t hurt his omnipotense or omniscience, because he GIVES free Choice, it’s a gift, he can take it away if he chooses, he decided to create us in his image, that was a Choice, and his omniscience isn’t lost, because he doesn’t lack knowledge of anything, the future isn’t “a thing” … much like the present king of france isn’t “a thing” so I can’t know him, it’s not hurting Gods’ omniscience that he doesn’t know who the present king of france is.

              1. David & Roman,

                With regard to “those whom He foreknew” (Romans 8:29; Romans 11:2), I would agree with Roman in that it was probably speaking of Israel (which is the church, Acts 7:35; Galatians 6:15) as a nation (of which only a remnant was to be saved, Romans 9:27; Romans 11:5).

                In Romans 9:6-13, Paul was merely responding to the accusation that God’s word had somehow “failed” (Romans 9:6) because some of the Jews were not believers (Romans 9:1-3) even though they were descended from Abraham (Romans 9:8).

                By appealing to God’s decision to “call” his people from among only the descendants of Isaac (Romans 9:9) and Jacob (Romans 9:11-13), Paul is simply making the argument that God never intended (from the beginning of the gospel, Galatians 3:8) for all of Abraham’s “descendants” to receive the promises. This refuted the argument of the unbelieving Jews who thought that merely having Abraham as their “father” (without believing in Jesus Christ) was sufficient (John 8:33-39).

                I don’t think any of this is a matter of individual determination because Paul is speaking about God’s original “choice” to show mercy only to the descendants of Jacob before he was born (Romans 9:11) after the miraculous conception of Isaac from the “dead” womb of Sarah (Romans 4:17-19). These events took place historically during the time of Abraham.

                Thus God predetermined only to bless the two sons (Isaac, Jacob) from whom the “remnant” of Israel would come (depending upon the individuals who chose to “believe”, Galatians 3:22 and to “seek” God by faith, Hebrews 11:6). In that sense, those of faith were “foreknown” in as much as they qualified as both descendants of Jacob and “children of the promise” by the choice of faith (Galatians 3:22; Romans 9:8).

                1. David Kemball-Cook

                  Thanks Roman and Rivers

                  So then both of you think that Romans 8 is addressed only to believing Jews, and relates only to their status as such, not to them as individuals?
                  I would like to believe you, in a way.
                  But surely the whole chapter is addressed to individual believers, Gentile and Jew.

                  Look at the law court language at the end of the chapter.
                  Makes no sense if addressed to nations, surely.

                  To Roman
                  Re educated guesses, OK thanks, I see there is a difference between that and real prediction.

                  Re God’s actions, I think you are agreeing with me in saying that the open view has God like a master strategist / chess player. He
                  does not know ‘the future’, but is able to adapt with a Plan B if Plan A fails.

                  1. Hi David,

                    I would agree with you that there are individualist implications to the “foreknowledge” and “predestination” and “calling” and “justification” and “glorification” in Romans 8:29-30. However, I don’t think it’s necessary to conclude that there was a deliberate “determination” that only certain individuals would be saved.

                    Since Paul always associated the “gospel” with Abraham (Romans 4:1-18; Galatians 3:8-17), I think these references to “foreknowledge” and “calling” were simply speaking of God’s “choice” to bless only Abraham’s descendants through Isaac and Jacob. This calling originated during the time of the Patriarchs and not before Genesis (Romans 9:5-13).

                    As the generations followed, it was necessary for those individuals (descended from Israel, Romans 9:6) who were eligible for “the promise” (Galatians 3:16) to “come to God by faith and to seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). It was necessary for them to make their “calling and election certain” by continuing in the obedience of faith (2 Peter 1:9-11).

                    1. David Kemball-Cook

                      Thanks Rivers

                      I have trouble understanding your first paragraph.
                      The two sentences appear to contradict each other. ‘Individualist implications’? What does this mean, except personal predestination, or (your word) ‘determination’ of individuals?

                      You also imply that Romans 8, then Gal 3:16, is only about Jews.

                      Surely Romans 8, at least, is about every believer?
                      Likewise 2 Peter 1?

                      It is surely wrong exegesis to say that election applies only Jews.
                      Have I misunderstood you?

                      1. David,

                        I’m sorry if those sentences were a bit vague. I was just trying to suggest that the implications of “foreknowledge” and “predestination” were contingent upon the faith (or lack thereof) among those who were “called” from the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Romans 9:6-13). Those who chose to “seek” and to have “faith” found “reward” with God (Hebrews 11:6-39).

                        Let me clarify that “Jews” were certainly not the only Israelites to whom Jesus Christ and the apostles were sent. For example, there were other Israelites called “Samaritans” (John 4:9, 12, 20) and “Greeks” (John 7:35; Romans 3:9-20). The “Jews” were only a part of the “all Israel” that God intended to save (Romans 11:26).

                        The reason I think Galatians 3:16 pertains to the Israelites is because of the context. Paul said that even those who had “faith” in Galatia were once “having the Law as our tutor BEFORE faith came” (Galatians 3:22-24). This could only pertain to Israelites because no other people were ever held accountable to it (Amos 3:1-2; Psalms 147:19-20; Romans 3:10-18).

                        From a forensic standpoint, I don’t think Peter was writing to anyone other than Israelites either since he was “the apostles to the circumcision” (Galatians 2:7-11) and was writing both letters to “the dispersed” (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1) of Israel (1 Peter 2:9-10). These were probably the “devout Jews from every nation under heaven” that he converted earlier (Acts 2:5-11).

                        1. David Kemball-Cook

                          Thanks Rivers

                          Even if we grant that Peter was writing to Jews, and Gal 3 was about the
                          Jews, there remains Romans 8.

                          In Romans 9 ‘Israel’ refers to Israel ‘after the flesh’ does it not? (“my
                          kinsmen according to the flesh:”)
                          Not about the new Israel, the Church, Israel ‘after the spirit’.

                          Surely the passage only makes sense when read in the light of Paul’s concern for physical Israel.

                          But Romans 8 is surely addressed to all believers.
                          There is no mention of Israel anywhere in the chapter.
                          The start of Romans 9 begins a new argument, relating to the fate of Paul’s kinsmen.

                          Is ‘the saints’ in 8:27 just Jewish believers?
                          Can we really argue coherently that Romans 8 is only about Jewish believers?

                          1. Hi David,

                            I do see important clues in Romans 8 that suggest that Paul was speaking of the Israelites. For example, he speaks of fulfilling “the requirement of the Law” (Romans 8:4) and “the flesh” (Romans 8:5) and “the adoption of sons” (Romans 8:15, 23) and “the redemption” (Romans 8:23). These things are all related to what Paul teaches about Israel’s accountability to the Law.

                            I think the important thing to keep in mind is that “Jews” were not the only Israelites. Even though all Jews were Israelites in scripture, not all Israelites were Jews. The goal of Paul’s gospel was the salvation of “all Israel” whether they were Jewish or gathered from the nations (Romans 11:26-27).

                            1. Well, he was talking to the entire Christian community there, most of whome were Jews, but there were also non Jews, the point was that they (along with the gentile believers) were not obligated to follow the law, whereas many thought they were (both of them) Obligated.

                              Or are you saying that the “Israelites” were the “new Israel” consisting of the church? If that’s what you mean, then we are in agreement, and “Israelites” is just semantics at that point.

                              So for example, Cornelius, did he become an “Israelite” in your usage of the term?

                              1. Hi Roman,

                                Here are some questions that I have for you (based upon your previous reply):

                                1. If Jewish believers were no longer obligated to follow the Law, then why were “all” of the Jewish believers still “zealous for the Law” (Acts 21:20).

                                2. If Paul was teaching Jewish believers that they were no longer obligated to circumcise their children and follow the customs of Moses, then why did he acknowledge that he was NOT teaching those things to the Jewish people who were among the nations (Acts 21:21)?

                                3. Can you find an example of where Paul ever explicitly told any Jewish (circumcised) person that they were no longer obligated to follow the precepts of the Law of Moses?

                                1. David Kemball-Cook

                                  I agree with Roman here. If we are going to call gentile believers ‘Israelites’,
                                  then it is just semantics.

                                  Paul was a participant at the Council of Jerusalem, at which the Mosaic Law was specifically put aside in the case of gentile believers. He also argues in
                                  Galatians that we (Jewish believers) are no longer under the Law

                                  ‘Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer
                                  under a schoolmaster.’ (Gal 3:24f)

                                  My original point was about the ‘predestination’ and ‘elect’ language in the NT, which appears to undercut the open theist view, and I cited Romans 8 as an example.

                                  Roman has said that Romans 8 is collective language.
                                  I am not convinced. I will try to reply to him below.

                                  Thanks to you both

                                  1. Hi David,

                                    Back to Romans 8 …

                                    I think the evidence indicates that Paul is speaking of God “calling” the Israelites as a specific genealogy of people (in general) and not inferring anything about determining the destiny of individual people.

                                    If you compare the “calling” in Romans 8:30 with those who are “called” in Romans 9:11, it seems that the “call” is related to God’s choice to bless the descendants of Isaac (Romans 9:7) and Jacob (Romans 9:12-13). This is about the eligibility of certain nations of people and not specific individuals within the genealogy.

                                    1. David Kemball-Cook

                                      Thanks Rivers

                                      Yes OK, maybe you can argue that ‘calling’ in Romans 9 is calling of a
                                      nation, the Jews.

                                      But there is a break between Romans 8 and Romans 9.
                                      In Rom 1-8 Paul is arguing that salvation is by faith upon all who believe, Jews and Gentiles.

                                      It seems clear, to me at least, that Romans 8 is about the standing of INDIVIDUAL believers before God.
                                      Nothing about being a Jew in the whole chapter

                                      I repeat what I said to Roman the other day

                                      “Romans 8 is seamless. The first verse is about believers individually, isn’t it?
                                      ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
                                      Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit’

                                      It is individuals who receive the Spirit, not groups
                                      ‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
                                      For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
                                      The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:’

                                      It ends as it begins with law court language.
                                      ‘Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.’ (8:33)

                                      The charges could be collective, against the church.
                                      But if the chapter is seamless, it reads more naturally as about charges that could be laid against individuals”

                                      Romans 8 is a go-to passage for Calvinists, which is why the Arminians avoid it!

                                      I have not seen yet any exposition of it which explains away its apparent message that God foreknows, predestines and calls individuals for salvation.

                                      1. David,

                                        I think you are making two assumptions that are not consistent with the biblical evidence. The first is that all Israelites are Jews. The second is that all gentiles are non-Israelites. Please consider a few things:

                                        1. The apostles understood that the “Samaritans” and “Greeks” were also fellow Israelites (John 4:9, 12, 20; John 7:35; Romans 3:9-20). However, they were not “Jews” and the Jewish Israelites did not associate with them (John 4:9; Acts 21:28). Thus, when Paul speaks of “the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16), we have to be careful that we don’t assume he’s talking about heathens.

                                        2. In Romans 4, Paul speaks of the uncircumcised “gentiles” as having “Abraham as OUR forefather ACCORDING TO THE FLESH” (Romans 4:1) along with the Jews (Romans 3:29-30). Further along in Romans 4, Paul also points out that both his circumcised (Jewish) and uncircumcised (gentiles) converts were “descendants” of Abraham from “the womb of Sarah” (Romans 4:11-20). How could this language apply to anyone who was from the genealogy of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

                                        3. In Romans 11:25-27, Paul indicates that “all Israel” could not be saved until “the fullness of the gentiles” was brought in. This “fullness of the gentiles” is quoted from Genesis 48:19-20 where it refers to the descendants of Jacob through the sons of Joseph. Thus, the implication is that “removing ungodliness from Jacob” (Romans 11:26) was a matter of reconstituting “all Israel” (Romans 11:25) from both the Jews and gentiles who were his descendants.

                                        1. David Kemball-Cook

                                          Hi Rivers

                                          Thanks.
                                          But to say that gentile believers are Israelites seems to be just semantics, in a way.

                                          What is the relevance to the question of open theism, and whether God elects and predestines individuals for salvation?

                                          1. David,
                                            Why would it be a matter of “semantics”? Most people understand that there is a big difference between “Jews” and “gentiles” in scripture.

                                            I think it is relevant to the Open Theism concept because the contexts of Romans 8-9 are applicable only to the Israelites. They are the only people under consideration in Romans 9:6-13. Thus, I think that trying to force the language about “Isaac” and “Jacob” (who were the origin of a specific genealogical heritage of people) to infer that God predetermined the destiny of all individual human beings has nothing to do with the context.

                                          2. 1. Because they were raised Jewish, and didn’t really understand the full weight of the atonement apparently, they were also culturally Jewish and had a strong tie to the law as a form of religious piety, also perhaps because the law is good and Godly, that doesn’t mean that they are OBLIGATED to follow the law, or even if they did believe that, they were wrong.

                                            2. The accusation was that Paul was telling people to NOT follow the law, Paul was not a Marcionite, the law was good, but there is a new covenant, one not based on circumcision, that doens’t mean that one cannot get circumcised.

                                            3. Romans 10:4, Romans 7:4-6 for example. Paul was a Jew, he was included in the released form the law. Acts 10, for example, God commanded Peter to do something unlawful.

                                            When you have a new covenant, it’s a new covenant, the old one is finished, that doesn’t mean the law is bad, but it’s not part of the new covenant, we don’t have 2 covenants going at the same time.

                                        2. I don’t think Romans 8 is addressed only to believing Jews, I think it’s referring to the Christian community as the people of God, the new Israel one might say, that’s why you need to read Romans 9 as context. Romans 9 talks about the election and predestination of Israel, of coarse this was not talking about individual Israelites, and thus there is no reason to believe that Romans 8 is talking about the election and predestination of individual Christians, rather that the Christian community as a whole.

                                          Are you at all familiar with the “New perspective on Paul” of people like James D Dunn and NT wright? I think some of that scholarship would be of interest to you. It’s important to read Paul from a Jewish perspective and a covenental perspective, since that was the context Paul was writing in, and Jewish covenental theology was communal not individual.

                                          God used law court language in the Hebrew scriptures all the time, and did so talking about the whole nation of Israel, Paul was interested in who was the people of God and how to be part of them,not individual salvation primarily.

                                          I saw educated guesses with reserve, listen if I tell you that if you drive your car and never change your oil your car will eventually break down, is that an educated guess or a real prediction? Also I was talking about your example from a human standpoint, when talking about Gods knowledge it’s difficult to use human examples.

                                          I see what you mean by chess player, and yeah I agree, but that doesn’t mean he cannot be sure of his ultimate purpose.

                                          1. David Kemball-Cook

                                            Thanks Roman

                                            I agree a nation can be elect.
                                            But Romans 8:28-39 is personal language

                                            ‘And we know that all things work together for good to them
                                            that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
                                            For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to beconformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
                                            Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

                                            Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shalltribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
                                            …’.
                                            How can we read words like these in a collective sense?

                                            I have read some of the New Perspective material, thanks.

                                            But I don’t think any of those authors would interpret Romans 8 as about a collective.

                                            Regarding a prediction machine, I take your points.
                                            But are you saying that such a machine is logically
                                            impossible, because humans cause their own actions, or physically impossible because of quantum indeterminacy (or both)?
                                            I think the distinction is important.

                                            Yes if God is a chess player he will never lose, never have an off day and get caught by a silly mistake.
                                            The analogy breaks down there!

                                            1. OK, you have to explain to me why you think Romans 8:28-39 is personal language …. I simply don’t see it, it’s all plural pronounds “tois agapopowsi ton theon” in vrs 28, “Hous Prognow” in vrs 29, “Pollois adelphois” … many brothers, and so on and so forth, I could go on, it’s all plural, it’s “we,” it’s “us” it’s “the ones whome” and so on.

                                              It certainly sounds to be Paul is talking about a group, a collective, and that we get confirmed in chapter 9, when Paul makes the parallel with Israel, you can’t ignore that, they are both part of one point Paul is making.

                                              I don’t see why we cant read it in a collective sense, I mean the exact same language is used of Israel, and we most naturally read that in a collective sense.

                                              So take vrs 35-39, we know for sure, and most certainly Paul knew, that there wer some people who broke under pressure and gave up their faith, of coarse this happenend, does this mean that they were never acually faithful? No, Pauls point is that Jesus’ love is stronger than any thing the enemies of Christ can put on his followers, and thus they need not be afraid, God has chosen them, AS A PEOPLE, so they have God on their side …. it’s the exact same message we find over and over again in the Hebrew bible, in the psalms, in the prophets, God is on our side so we have nothing to fear. That does not mean that individual Israelites, or individual Christians couldn’t under pressure betray their faith.

                                              I think you need to make more of an argument that those scriptures cannot be exegeted properly in a collective manner, and they must be both individual and literal.

                                              As for the New perspective, I’m pretty sure (at least NT wright) Read this passage as being about belonging to God’s people and not individual salvation, but I’d have to look back.

                                              I’m saying it’s logically impossible because humans cause their own actions, I’m not gonna hang anything on quantum indeterminancy, as I don’t think quantum indeterminancy gives you free will at all (a non weighted dice has no more “free will” than a weighted dice, to use a crude example.) My ONLY point in bringing up quantum indeterminancy was to point out that even in physics determinancy can be doubted rationally, and is doubted rationally, how much more so with Human beings made in the image of God.

                                              About the chess, right, fair enough :).

                                              1. David Kemball-Cook

                                                Thanks Roman

                                                Romans 8 is seamless.
                                                The first verse is about believers individually, isn’t it?

                                                ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
                                                Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit’

                                                It is individuals who receive the Spirit, not groups

                                                ‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
                                                For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
                                                The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:’

                                                It ends as it begins with law court language.
                                                ‘Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.’ (8:33)

                                                The charges could be collective, against the church.
                                                But if the chapter is seamless, it reads more naturally as about charges that could be laid against individuals

                                                Regarding determinism, thanks.

                                                So then are you saying that a prediction machine is impossible, because humans cause their own actions?
                                                That it is impossible to predict what humans will choose?
                                                If so, is it logical impossibility or physical impossibility?

                                                1. David,

                                                  I think the problem with your line of argument here is that, even though Paul is addressing individuals within a group (in Rome), it doesn’t follow that God’s “calling” was predetermined on an individual basis. Even when Paul speaks of the “remnant” who will be saved, it is speaking of a group of people (Romans 9:27; Romans 11:5).

                                                  Paul’s whole point in Romans 9:1-14 is that it was “just” for God to reject those who were denying Jesus Christ because, even though they were eligible for the covenants and promises according to the flesh (Romans 9:3-5), God only intended certain descendants of Abraham to be called according to the “promise” (Romans 9:8). This is illustrated by the fact that God did not call any of the descendants of Ishmael and Esau (Romans 9:10, 13).

                                                  Since Jesus Christ was the “seed” who was to inherit the “promise” (Galatians 3:16), those eligible Israelites (Romans 9:6) needed to choose to believe in him to be among the remnant to be saved (Romans 10:9). This is how predestination, foreknowledge, and calling work together with faith.

                                                  1. David Kemball-Cook

                                                    Thanks. See my answer to you above

                                                    I can see Romans 9-11 as about the fate of the Jews, and about God’s choosing and calling them as a nation.

                                                    But I see Romans 1-8 as about salvation by faith for all who believe, Jew and Gentile.

                                                    There is a natural break between Romans 8 and Romans 9.

                                                    I see this discussion as about whether the Bible supports open theism, and whether it is possible to resolve the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism in its texts.

                                                    I am inclined towards open theism, but I cannot see any obvious way to explain away texts like Romans 8:28-33 (which is why Arminians avoid them!)

                                                    1. I don’t think there is a break there, I think Romans 8 and Romans 9 are Connected, Romans 9 is making a parallel between the New Covenant and the old.
                                                      I agree Romans 8:28-33 is difficult for Arminians and Open theists, but it’s only difficult if you read it OUT of the larger context, and insist on Reading it in an individual way. If you read it given the parallel in Romans 9, and allow Romans 9 to influence how you read Romans 8, and also allow the rest of the testimony of scripture to influence Your theology (the rest of scripture being overwhelmingly supportive of an open theist position), then Romans 8:28-33 fits with the rest.
                                                      The hermeneutical principle of interperating the difficult and vague texts in light of the easier and more concrete texts should apply here.

                                                      1. David Kemball-Cook

                                                        Thanks Roman. I am still not convinced, although I would like to believe you!
                                                        What we would need is an exegesis of those verses in Romans 8 that I quoted to you, the verses that particularly suggest individuals.

                                                        1. I understand, but I don’t see why Romans 8 can’t be exegeted consistantly in a collective way, given that all the Language is plural and the parallel given is the Covenant With Israel which was clearly and obviously a collective covenant.

                                                        2. Ummm, not really, those in Christ are those who are part of the new covenant, the community of believers, and no the group DOES get spirit as well, the congregation is guided by the holy spirit.

                                                          What was the first covenant, it was collective, what was the “Predestination” for the first covenant, it was collective, I don’t think Paul is saying the old law was collective, the new one is individual, I think they both are, we walk after the spirit because we are in the christian community, and that community is what God has chosen and predestined, JUST THE SAME WAY he chose and predestined the Children of Jacob.

                                                          The whole context around 8:33 is collective, all of us.

                                                          But the whole argument Paul is making is comparing the new with the old, and the predestination of the new with the predestination of the old, so obviously we’d see the new in the light of the old, since that’s the point Paul is making.

                                                          Regarding the prediction machine … I don’t know if I would go so far to say it’s logically impossible, I’ll have to think about that some more. I would have to say, if it is true that humans cause their own actions and intentions, it would be impossible to predict them prior to their being made.

                                                        3. David Kemball-Cook

                                                          Hi Roman

                                                          Re open theism, can I ask you the questions I asked Dale?

                                                          Re the omniscience of God, does your view entail that God knows all the things that will happen EXCEPT the decisions of free agents?
                                                          I think that such a view is untenable because everything that happens is interwoven with all the other things that happen.

                                                          So if God does not know what is going to happen in the next instance, say if there will be an avalanche from a certain ridge in the Alps, then does it make no difference if his ignorance is due to causal indeterminism (how much snow falling will tip the balance) or due to the decision of a free agent (eg climber Joe choosing to walk on one side as opposed to the other)?

                                                          Is that correct, according to you? That God just only knows probabilities of
                                                          ANYTHING that will happen in the future?
                                                          Even if he plans certain things (eg that Jesus will be the Messiah), he
                                                          is not certain that it will pan out as he intends?

                                                          Thanks

                                                          David

                                        3. Hi David,

                                          Thanks for the questions. Here are some quick replies:

                                          1) Libertarian freedom is the view that for some choices we make, at the very moment before the choice, both that choosing and refraining are able to happen next – nothing implies that the choice happens or doesn’t happen. Philosophers differ on the precise mechanics of such freedom, and a good number of philosophers deny that we have such freedom. Some aggressively deny that the very concept is consistent, though I think no one can make that charge stick.

                                          2) Yes. I discuss this in my “Three Roads” paper. Briefly, a being is omniscient at a time just in case he knows all that is, all that has been, and all (as of now) that will be. But he also must know which things as of now remain possible, and how probable each of these is now. There is no fact which a being like this fails to know. In my view, God has this kind of knowledge essentially, and so at any time he knows all there is to know, and there couldn’t be a fact that is hidden from him. The cosmos exists, as it were, “in him,” and he can’t be ignorant of any reality. You can see why I bristle when some characterize open theism as “denial of God’s omniscience.”

                                          3) No. Libertarian freedom is by definition incompatible with causal determinism, or any form of determinism.

                                          4) Briefly, predestination to salvation in the Bible is corporate and conditional. The basic idea of the chosen is the nation Israel. But you may well be an ancient Israelite, and not be reconciled to God. I think that God causes or allows all events. Nothing surprises him, in a bad sense. Of course, sometimes, what was objectively improbable before hand happens. But God was perfectly aware of it as a possibility. I don’t think God can unconditionally damn anyone. I do think he can very well choose and pass over people for any number of lesser fates, as he sees fit. But he can’t, as a good being, hold you accountable and also at no time given you any power over how your life goes.

                                          5) Yeah. Boyd takes the all false view when it comes to statements about future contingents, which I argue against in this talk. He confusingly calls his view “Neo-Molinism” – but it’s really not any form of Molinism. In “Three Roads” I also disagree with people like Willard, who thinks that God chooses not to know things which are in principle knowable, and Hasker, who supposes that there are essentially unknowable facts or truths.

                                          I hope all that helps!

                                          1. David Kemball-Cook

                                            Thanks Dale

                                            That is very helpful. As I said, it seems to me that an open theist view is preferable to predestination or Molinism.

                                            Re the omniscience of God, does your view entail that God knows all the things that will happen EXCEPT the decisions of free agents? I think that such a view is untenable because everything that happens is interwoven with all the other things that happen.

                                            So if God does not know what is going to happen in the next instance, say if there will be an avalanche from a certain ridge in the Alps, then does it make no difference if his ignorance is due to causal indeterminism (how much snow falling will tip the balance) or due to the decision of a free agent (eg climber Joe choosing to walk on one side as opposed to the other)?

                                            Is that correct, according to you? That God just only knows probabilities of
                                            ANYTHING that will happen in the future? Even if he plans certain things (eg that Jesus will be the Messiah), he is not certain that it will pan out as he intends?

                                            And re election and predestination, there are verses there clearly speak of this as personal election, not the election of a group or nation, such as the ones I quoted. What do you say to those?

                                            Thanks again
                                            David

                                            1. Hi David,

                                              I’ve been traveling (still am) this whole time; sorry for the delay.

                                              “Re the omniscience of God, does your view entail that God knows all the things that will happen EXCEPT the decisions of free agents? I think that such a view is untenable because everything that happens is interwoven with all the other things that happen.”

                                              I think that your question presupposes that as of now, there are facts, future facts, about what agents will freely do. That is what I deny. Yes, their freedom does imply that there are future contingents re: other things. e.g. If you’re free to graffitti that rock in the woods or not, then it is a future contingent that the rock is modified within a certain time period, or not.

                                              “So if God does not know what is going to happen in the next instance, say if there will be an avalanche from a certain ridge in the Alps, then does it make no difference if his ignorance is due to causal indeterminism (how much snow falling will tip the balance) or due to the decision of a free agent (eg climber Joe choosing to walk on one side as opposed to the other)?”

                                              Yes – but an event may be determined by God without being causally determined. As far as the laws of nature go, the matter may be open, but it could well be a part of his plan that he’s resolved to bring about an avalanche. But then, it’ll be a fact today that an avalanche will happen tomorrow, and it’ll be true to say that.

                                              “Is that correct, according to you? That God just only knows probabilities of
                                              ANYTHING that will happen in the future? Even if he plans certain things (eg that Jesus will be the Messiah), he is not certain that it will pan out as he intends?”

                                              No – the future can be as open (indeterminate) or as determinate as he wants it to be. As to people cooperating with him, e.g. Mary or Jesus, he can either manipulate matters so that it is very probably that his will is done, or he can simply ensure that it is, of course, at the cost of some degree or amount of human freedom.

                                              “And re election and predestination, there are verses there clearly speak of this as personal election, not the election of a group or nation, such as the ones I quoted. What do you say to those?”

                                              Looking up this thread, I don’t see verses. But remember that election is just choosing. Not all choosing is the kind that Augustinians are laser-focused on. God has only ethical limits – and far wider ones that we have – on who he chooses for what. I don’t think that he chooses people for salvation or damnation independent of what they actually do. So if a verse is about choosing an individual, I’m probably going to say that it doesn’t concern salvation and damnation – again, unconditional on their reaction to God’s grace. Like, e.g. Wesleyans, I think God gives some grace to all, if only by conscience and information about God through the natural world. He’s by no means obligated to give people equal amounts or equal kinds. But I think you must have some chance to avoid permanent rejection by God, even if it is a rather small one.

                                              1. David Kemball-Cook

                                                Thanks Dale

                                                Appreciate your reply

                                                1) I think the prospect of open theism is exciting. Breath of fresh air into Calvinist/Arminian debate.
                                                But what kind of OT? There seem to be different kinds.

                                                2) The verses I was quoting were mainly from Romans 8. I said to Roman/Rivers

                                                “I agree a nation can be elect.
                                                But Romans 8:28-39 is personal language
                                                ‘And we know that all things work together for good to them
                                                that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
                                                For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to beconformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
                                                Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

                                                Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
                                                …’.
                                                How can we read words like these in a collective sense?”

                                                There are other passages as well, eg Eph 1:4-5
                                                ‘According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
                                                Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

                                                and 1 Peter 1:2
                                                ‘Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father …’

                                                I don’t see how you can read ‘predestination’ in any way but that of individual predestination.

                                                3) About the avalanche, I was trying to get at how much you think God knows about what is going to happen, ASIDE from decisions of free agents. He knows the laws of physics, he knows how much snow is going to fall in the next hour (day? month?), so surely he knows whether there is going to be an avalanche in the next hour (not just probabilities).

                                                If he knows about the next hour, what about the next month, year, decade?
                                                If his knowledge turns into (mere) probabilities after a certain length of time, would that be because free agents (climber Joe) will interfere with the snow, and so he cannot forsee with certainty?

                                                If so, is that the ONLY reason God’s knowledge of near-future events reduces to knowledge of probabilities as time goes on?

                                                Thanks again!

                                                1. ‘And we know that all things work together for good to them (the Church)
                                                  that love God, to them (the Church) who are the called according to his purpose.
                                                  For whom (the Church) he did foreknow, he also did predestinate (the Church) to beconformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren (obviously talking about the Church).
                                                  Moreover whom (the Church) he did predestinate, them he also called (Jesus called his disciples to discipleship, but it was a collective Call to the Church): and whom he called, them he also justified (the Christian community is justified): and whom he justified, them he also glorified (The Church).

                                                  Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
                                                  I don’t see why this couldn’t be understood in a collective sense, I mean right afterwords Paul talks similarly about Israel in a collective sense.
                                                  Do you really think this cannot be exegeted in a collective sense?

                                                  1. Hi Roman,

                                                    I agree with your “collective sense” interpretation of Romans 8:28-30 but I would [paraphrase] it a little differently based upon cross-referencing of the Pauline usage of the terminology:

                                                    ROMANS 8:28 … “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those [the remnant of Israel, Romans 9:27] who love God, to those [the saints, Romans 1:6] who are called according to His purpose [through Isaac and Jacob, Romans 9:7-11]”

                                                    ROMANS 8:29 … “For those whom He foreknew [the people of Israel, Romans 11:1-2], He also predestined [for adoption as sons, Romans 8:23; Ephesians 1:5], to be conformed to the image of His son [through resurrection, Philippians 3:21], so that he [Jesus Christ] would be the firstborn [from among the dead, Colossians 1:18] among many brethren [of the descendants of Abraham, Hebrews 2:14-16]”

                                                    ROMANS 8:30 …. “And these whom He predestined [for adoption as sons, Romans 8:23], He also called [through Isaac and Jacob, Romans 9:7-11], and these [the remnant of Israel, Romans 9:27] whom He called, He also justified [through redemption in Christ, Romans 8:23; Romans 3:24], and these [having faith in Christ, Romans 3:26], He also glorified.”

                                                    1. Hi, Rivers,
                                                      WIth all do respect I completely dissagree … Paul is talking about a different group in Romans 8 than he is in Romans 9. Read the first verses of Romans 9 …

                                                      “1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people,[a] my kindred according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah,[b] who is over all, God blessed forever.[c] Amen.”

                                                      Paul is clearly introducing a new group, seperate from the group talked about in Chapter 8.

                                                      Paul was writing his letter to all the saints in Rome … were they all israelites? were they all Jews? Did Paul ever make it clear that it was just Jews he was talking to?

                                                      Remember this was still the time when Gentile Christians were often required to get circumcised to be Christians. So the talk about the law doesn’t mean it’s only for Jews.

                                                      Now, if you’re just going to redefine Israelites as anyone who becomes a Christian, then it’s really just playing semantics games, and there is nothing really to talk about.

                                                      But if you really think that God made a new covenant, and Paul actually talks about this, then we have to deal with it.

                                                      Roman’s 8 is not just saying the exact same thing in Romans 9, the whole point is the comparison between the 2 covenants.

                                                      1. Hi Roman,
                                                        Thank you for the comments. Please let me clarify a few things:

                                                        1. I agree that Paul was addressing a different group in Romans 9 because he said “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” (Romans 9:6). However, I think it’s evident that the distinction is between believing and unbelieving descendants of Abraham because he uses the sons of Abraham to illustrate his point about those who are called and those who are not (Romans 9:6-14).

                                                        2. I think the “saints” in Rome were probably all Israelites because he is writing about the “salvation of Jews and Greeks” (Romans 1:16) and said that “both Jews and Greeks … are under the Law” (Romans 3:9-20). These Greeks must be Israelites since we know only “the sons of Israel” ever knew the Law or were ever held accountable to it (Psalms 147:19-20; Amos 3:2). We also know from the 4th Gospel that the Jews called the Israelites of the Diaspora “the Greeks” (John 7:35).

                                                        3. I agree that there was an issue in the apostolic churches with regard to the uncircumcised “gentiles” who became believers (Acts 15:1-29). However, it doesn’t logically follow that this means that those “gentiles” were non-Israelites. The issue was “circumcision” (obedience) and not genealogy. Being an Israelite was determined by one’s birth (Isaiah 51:2), but disobeying the command to be circumcised rendered an Israelite ineligible to participate in the covenant (Genesis 17:4).

                                                        4. No, I would never redefine “Israel” as “anyone who becomes a Christian”. The word “Israel” in scripture always refers to a particular genealogy of people. I don’t find any evidence that Jesus or the apostles were teaching than that anyone could be converted to an “Israelite” by any means. In Romans 4, Paul was teaching that both “faith” and “circumcision” were a matter for those who had “Abraham as our forefather according to the flesh” (Romans 4:1). Thus, there is no problem with semantics.

                                                        5. I think the language of the “new covenant” promise is also significant. It was made explicitly with “the houses of Israel and Judah” who were the descendants of the same people who received the first covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). I don’t find any indication that Jesus or the apostles modified the language of the covenant to include anyone else (Hebrews 8:8-13).

                                                        1. Sorry about this Rivers but I’m afraid I need more clarification, I just want to get Your position absolutely Clear before I start deciding how I would approach it, or if I agree With it or not.
                                                          1. In ROmans 9, he’s talking about Physical Israel, and those who believe and those who don’t, in Romans 8 he’s talking about the Christian Congregation, and there is a contrast, between the old covenant and the New.
                                                          2.So are you saying that Jews and Greeks, actualyl mean Jews and Jews of the Diaspora? …. I mean I would assume that all Jews living in Rome were Diaspora Jews … arn’t they?
                                                          I don’t think Romans 3 was saying both Jew and greek were under Law at all, they are under the Power of sin … but not Law, I don’t know where you’re getting that from.
                                                          3. Ok, this is a very very New concept, I’ve never heard this before, are you telling me that you believe that all the first Christians who were “gentiles” were actually descendants of Joseph? I mean how would anyone know that? Was Cornelius actually an Israelite?
                                                          I mean as far as I can tell it sounds like a ludacris suggestion, that all the christians were actually physically Israelites, but just not circumcised, I don’t know on what grounds you would say that, and why?
                                                          5. So basically to be a part of the New covenant you believe one has to be a physical Israelite?

                                                          1. Hi Roman,

                                                            Thanks for continuing the conversation. Here is some further clarification. I’m just trying to sort out the biblical evidence as I see it:

                                                            1. I understand what you are seeing as the distinction in Romans 8-9. However, I see the distinction as a difference between believing and unbelieving Israelites. In other words, a difference between Israelites who were “Christians” and Israelites who were not believers (Romans 9:6).

                                                            2. The main point to consider with “Greeks” is that there is evidence that some of them were Israelites of the Diaspora (John 7:35) who were probably circumcised because they were permitted to worship with the Jews (John 12:20). These “Greeks” were also found in the synagogues with the Jews (Acts 17:4; Acts 18:4).

                                                            However, some of the evidence suggests that other “Greeks” were not permitted to worship with the Jews (probably because they were not circumcised, Acts 16:1-3; Acts 21:28; Galatians 2:3). Thus, we have to be careful not to assume that all “Greeks” were non-Israelites (even though they are clearly distinguished from the “Jewish” Israelites).

                                                            3. The reason I’m inclined to think that the “Greeks” to whom Paul was writing in Rome were all fellow Israelites is because he indicated that “both Jews and Greeks” were “all under the Law” and “accountable” to the Law (Romans 3:9-20). This could only be true of Greeks who were descendants of Abraham (Romans 4:1) because the Law was never known by, or required of, any other genealogy of people (Psalms 147:19-20; Amos 3:2).

                                                            4. Yes, I think there is substantial evidence that the “gentiles” to whom Paul is writing in Rome were actually descendants of Abraham who simply did not follow the Jewish religion (i.e. circumcision and customs of Moses, Acts 15:1-5; Acts 21:20-22).

                                                            For example, in Romans 4:11-20, Paul seems to be saying that both the circumcised and uncircumcised people of “faith” were “descendants” of heir “father” Abraham from “Sarah’s womb.” They all had “Abraham as OUR forefather according to the flesh” (Romans 4:1).

                                                            In Roman 9:24-26 and Romans 11:26-27, Paul also identifies his “gentiles” converts with the scattered Israelites in the prophecies of Hosea 1:10 and Hosea 2:23, and well as “the fullness of gentiles” (i.e. Joseph’s descendants, Genesis 48:19-20). Finally, he says that “all Israel will be saved” when these Jews and gentiles are united together at the Parousia (Romans 11:26-27).

                                                            5. With regard to Cornelius, we know only that he was “uncircumcised” (Acts 11:1-3). However, it’s interesting to consider that Cornelius was called a “foreigner” (Acts 10:28) which is the same word that Jesus used to speak of the Samaritan leper (Luke 11:18). Of course, we know that the Samaritans were also fellow Israelites that the Jews wouldn’t associate with (John 4:9, 12, 20). Thus, it’s evident that Jewish people used the term “foreigner” so speak of other Israelites who were not a part of their own sect.

                                                            1. I don’t see Romans 3:9-20 talking about both Jews and Greeks being under the Law … it says both Jews and Greeks are under ????????, or sin. Then in verse 19 it says:

                                                              19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For “no human being will be justified in his sight” by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

                                                              I don’t think this is saying that the Greeks were under the Law, it’s saying that it speaks to those under the Law (Jews), so that EVERY mouth (including greeks, and others) may be silenced, and the Whole world (including greeks) may be held accountable to God. So since through the Law comes sin and the Jews understand this, even more so how could none jews be justified by the Law by putting them under it when they join the Church.
                                                              I think that’s a better exegesis, rather than thinking that the greeks are also under Law, in which case you’d have to assume the “Whole world” is, meaning everyone in the world at that time was a descendent of Jacob, which is rediculous of course.
                                                              In Romans 4, it’s obviously speaking metaphorically, remember all the nations were to be blessed by Abraham, his seed became God’s People, so that in time, everyone from every nation could become God’s People and thus inheret the promise given to Abraham, it’s not that they all are literally Abrahams descendants.
                                                              In Romans 4:1 he says according to the flesh, because he was a Jew, and the Church he was writing to was primarily Jews.
                                                              Romans 9:24-26 and Romans 11:26-27.
                                                              I think you’re missing the bigger Message, all those gentiles, have, through Jesus BECOME God’s People, they are the true Israel, no longer just fleshly Israel, so he is applying those prophesies to all of God’s People, that’s the big story. I think you’re taking Paul literally, when Paul himself is using old testament Language through the eyes of what happened at Calvery, there was a New covenant, Israel is no longer fleshly Israel, but those who put faith in Christ, so those prophesies now can apply to those who are not descendants of Abraham.
                                                              I think it’s a stretch to both say Cornelius was a Samaritain, or a fellow Israelite.
                                                              It’s also a stretch to say the Samaritains were descendents of Abraham, the Assyrians dispersed the Israelite Northern Kingdom, and brought in New People. I think Foreigner back then, just meant what it means, foreigner, not a Jew.

                                                              1. Hi Roman,

                                                                Here’s a reply to your remarks in the previous comment.

                                                                1. I don’t agree with how you are interpreting Romans 3:9-20 because it doesn’t fit the context or the way that the word “Greeks” was used by the apostles. For example, the Jews recognized that “the Greeks” were the Israelites Diaspora (John 7:35; John 12:20). Second, Paul quoted numerous passages (Romans 3:10-19) about Israel to show that “both Jews and Greeks” were “all under sin.” There’s no exegetical reason to think that Paul quoted these passages about Israelites only to refer to the Jewish ones.

                                                                2. I think you are assuming that “the whole world” has to refer to “all humanity” which is also not biblical. For example, Paul understood that “the whole world” was limited to the extent that the gospel was preached during his own era (Romans 1:8). He also understood that “all nations” and “all creation” had already heard the gospel through his own ministry (Colossians 1:6, 23). In the context of Romans 3:9-20, “the whole world” meant the “Jews and Greeks” who were “under sin” as a result of their accountability to the Law of Moses.

                                                                3. On what basis was Paul “metaphorically speaking” in Romans 4? The terms Paul uses throughout the text like “according to the flesh” (Romans 4:1) and “the sign of circumcision” (Romans 4:11) and “father” (Romans 4:12) and “descendants” (Romans 4:13, 16) and “the father of many nations” (Romans 4:18) and “Sarah’s womb” (Romans 4:19) never require a metaphorical interpretation in any passage. These are all genealogical terms used hundreds of times throughout scripture.

                                                                4. I don’t think there is any exegetical evidence for the “bigger message” that you are trying to get out of the passages. You seem to be overlooking how all of the genealogical terminology that appears in Romans was used throughout the rest of scripture to refer to the Israelites. Paul also explained in Romans 4:16-19 that “all the descendants” (i.e. both Jews and gentiles) had their origin from “Sarah’s womb”).

                                                                5. For clarification, I didn’t suggest that Cornelius was a Samaritan. I was simply pointing out that the word “foreigner” was used by Jesus to refer to an Israelite who wasn’t Jewish (Luke 17:18). Also, when you suggest that Samaritans were not Israelites, it contradicts John 4:9, 12, 20. There’s also no evidence in scripture that the Israelites who were scattered into Assyria “brought in new people.”

                                                                6. I agree with your statement that “a foreigner just meant not a Jew.” However, it was used to speak of Israelites who were not Jewish, and thus we cannot assume that it meant a “non-Israelite.” Not all Isarelites were Jewish. 🙂

                                                                1. 1. To be honest, I think I just have to do more Research on that, I’ve never heard of the theor that “greeks” could refer to the Israelite dispora, I didn’t even know there could be a category outside of the Jewish dispora.

                                                                  2. Yes, but Whole world, meant the Whole world that was available to Paul, he obviously preached to non Israelite Gentiles … of course the passage would refer to them to wouldn’t it?

                                                                  3 &4 . based on verse 11

                                                                  11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them,

                                                                  He was the anscestor of ALL who believe …. not only physical Israel.
                                                                  I think this Message has to be taken into acount.
                                                                  5. I see. The evidence for the scattering and bringing in of New people is in 2 Kings 17:21-41
                                                                  6. it meant Non Jewish, I agree, but as for Non-Israelite, I am not aware it was a category outside of being synonymous With “jewish,” but I have to look into that.

                                                                  1. Hi Roman,

                                                                    1. I didn’t notice this evidence when I first began studying the scriptures either. I always assumed that Samaritans were “half-breeds” and Greek and gentiles were “non-Israelites.” However, the usage of these terms by Jesus and the apostles really doesn’t support either of those definitions. Thus, I’ve had to reconsider some things over the years.

                                                                    2. I agree that “the whole world” could only be referring to the known world of the apostolic era (Romans 1:8). However, I’m not sure that Paul was actually sent to heathen people. Rather, I’m more inclined to think he was sent to the uncircumcised Israelites who were scattered throughout the nations outside of Judea (Romans 9:24-26). How else could “all Israel” be saved by the inclusion of both Jews and gentiles (Romans 11:26-27) or they had have Abraham as their “forefather according to the flesh” (Romans 3:29-4:1)?

                                                                    3. I don’t think we should take Romans 4:11 out of the context of Romans 4:11-16 where the term “father” is related to “descendants.” How could the uncircumcised gentiles be “descendants” of their “father” Abraham unless they were Israelites? How could they be from “Sarah’s womb” (Romans 4:19) if they were not biological “descendants”?

                                                                    4. I think a lot of folks make the mistake of assuming that “Israel = Jew” in scripture. Sometimes it does, but there the designation of “Jew” wasn’t used in scripture until after God cut off the Northern Kingdom to designate only the Israelites who remained in the land (2 Kings 16:6). Thus, even Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not “Jews” (in the biblical sense).

                                                    2. David Kemball-Cook

                                                      Hi Dale
                                                      When you have a moment please have a go at answering my questions (asked 13 days ago)
                                                      Thanks

                                                2. It’s interesting how those of us who are wiling to take an “unorthodox” view often take a number of them;-) Boyd is a classic example of this, as he’s also taken an unpopular position on Christian involvement in war, and the doctrine of eternal torment (he’s open to conditional immortality). Perhaps the Trinity will be the next popular teaching that he sets aside. He lost a 3rd of his church when he published his views on war, and he’d doubtless loose at least 50% of what remains if he embraces a form of Unitarianism. I think he’s courageous enough to do it, but how do you penetrate the fog of the presuppotional apologetic?

                                                  1. I can’t say that I understand Dr. Boyd’s views on the Trinity. My memory is that they are very speculative. People have a lot of reasons to simply refuse to consider that there might be a conflict between catholic tradition and the NT on the Trinity. The best reason is just that it has long been a majority view that they two go well together, and don’t conflict. I think this reason is defeated by a look at the facts of history, and of the several texts, though.

                                                3. Really interesting topic for the podcast Dale! I love thinking about these questions, particularly when it comes to philosophy of time and its relation to theology. Looking forward to learning more.
                                                  I’m also inclined towards presentism (despite studying physics in university), but I don’t really know much about open theism. After reading WLC’s “Time and Eternity” I put a lot of thought into reconciling special relativity and presentism. It was an eye-opening and enjoyable experience.

                                                Comments are closed.