podcast 80 – Foreknowledge, Freedom, and Randomness

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).

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 :).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. 🙂

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).