Romans 8:29, Foreknowledge, and Free Will

Over my 30+ years of preaching and teaching I have found one topic to be more prevalent in Q and A sessions than any other. The questions usually go something like this: Did God really choose to save some and not all? And if so, doesn't that violate our free will? And isn't it true that God's choice of us was really just His response to His knowing that we would respond to the Gospel in faith? Isn't that what Romans 8:29 says?"

Now of course, these questions don't usually come all at once but this series of questions does represent the most often misunderstood part of what the Bible teaches about how God saves sinners. And in answering these questions, we have to start there: God saves sinners. That is the basic message of biblical salvation. Churches don't save; pastors don't save; and most of all, people don't save themselves. Salvation is not of works, at all. Paul says so in Ephesians 2:8-10 (not of our works, because then we could boast; and besides, we're actually His work!) and in Titus 3:5 (He saved us, not through our works, but through His). I am constantly amazed that folks can read this, and then try to insert their own works into the equation, making God's saving act out to be a response to theirs. So, before I get back to Romans 8:29 and foreknowledge, let's start with some basics:

Scripture teaches that sin came into humanity through the sin of Adam, and the human person was changed from its original created status (very good) to being spiritually corrupt. You need only look at Paul's argument in Romans 3 to understand this. When is comes to spiritual goodness, Paul says there is no one that is good. There is no one who seeks after God (3:10-18). Paul goes on to teach that this condition is like that of a dead man. The effect of sin is spiritual death. In Ephesians 2:1ff he states that we are dead in our sins. This speaks of complete inability in the realm of the spiritual. Just what does this mean? Again we need to look at the words of Paul. He teaches that our state of spiritual death means it is impossible for us to please God (Romans 8:5-8). It is also impossible for the spiritually dead to understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). Thus, in the state of spiritual death - left to ourselves - we are unable to do anything that would change our situation.

It is interesting that the idea of the dead being raised is used as an illustration of the spiritually dead being given new life. Jesus uses it in John 5:25-29, and then enacts the greatest illustration of it in chapter 11. Lazarus was dead, fully dead, not mostly dead. He had been dead 3 days. So, Jesus calls to him to come out of the tomb, and he does. How did that happen? Did Lazarus will himself to wake up? No, it was the work of Christ that woke him up. God did the saving.

Given the fact of natural man's state of spiritual death and inability it is amazing that some still believe that such a man's salvation would be initiated by his own activity, be it physical or mental. The truth is that, if salvation had to be initiated by a sinner who was dead in his sins, no one would ever be saved. God saves sinners. We love because He first loved us.

At this point some may say that God does initiate, but that He does so in some way in everyone's life. He gives them just enough "life" to be able to analyze the data and make the decision of faith. But certainly you can see the problem here. If everyone is "enlightened" but only some are saved, then we're right back to same place. What is the deciding factor between those who are saved and those who are not, if they all start from the same place of enlightenment? There are only two answers: 1) they chose better than the others, in which case their salvation ultimately stems from they're doing what others did not do, or 2) God acted toward them in a way that He did not act toward all. In the first case you have human activity preceding divine action, or salvation by works. In the second, you have God's work preceding man's work, or salvation by grace alone.

Now that we have that set out, let's tackle Romans 8:29. Does this teach that God knew what we would do, and then "chose in Christ before the foundation of the world" those He knew would believe? If so, then God's choice of us was predicated on our choice of Him. This has been called the "long telescope" view of foreknowledge. Here are the reasons this view cannot be true:

1) The text is clear that whatever action on God's part that is here described as "foreknew" does not have as its targets all those who have ever lived. In other words, whatever "foreknew" means here, it can't apply to all humans. Not all humans were "foreknown." We know this is true because of the sequence Paul uses here. If we think in terms of sets, we have to see that those in the "set" that was "foreknown" are the same as those in the set of predestined, who are the same as those in the set of called, and justified, and glorified. Following Paul's simple literary logic demands that those who were foreknown were the exact same people who will ultimately be glorified. And herein lies the problem for those who think "foreknew" means that God looked ahead and knew something about the person. The problem is that God knew - and knows - everything about every person, not just some. To say that God knew how I would respond is also to say that God knew how everyone would respond. If "foreknowlege" here is simply that God knew something, then it can't be limited just to those who are glorified. And yet Paul does limit the action of "foreknowledge" here to just those who ultimately will be glorified. What I am trying to show is that Paul meant something other than mere knowledge here. He meant something that could only be true of those who would ultimately be glorified. And if we look at the way "know" is used in Scripture, we find that it is much more than mere knowledge; it is intimate relationship. As examples, see: Genesis 4:1, where we find the first sexual intimacy described in terms of "knowing" (the Hebrew word rendered "had relations with" is the word yada, to know.) Perhaps more to the point is God's statement in Amos 3:2 that Israel is the only nation He has "chosen." What is so interesting here is that the Hebrew word here translated "chosen" is yada, the same word used in Genesis 4:1 to describe marital intimacy. This is no isolated incident. Throughout the Bible, God's relationship with His own is described as "knowing." Matthew 7:22 declares that, in the end, many who think they are okay with God will hear that terrible words "Depart from Me I never 'knew' you." Again, here the idea of God not knowing about them is both ludicrous and not the point. God knew everything about them, but He did not "know" them in terms of entering into a personal, intimate relationship with them.

In Romans 8:29, Paul is declaring that those who are ultimately glorified are the same ones with whom God has previously (before the foundation of the world: Eph. 1:4) entered into an intimate, redemptive relationship. This is the only way "foreknew" in Romans 8:29 makes any sense. "Whom God fore-loved, he also predestined ... called, justified, glorified."

Now I know that this raises all kinds of questions. But I beg you: don't go running down the pathways of your feelings, and then try to re-make the biblical declarations to fit them. First you and I must be clear on what Paul is teaching about the sequence of salvation. God initiated it, and He did so based only on the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11) and not on the basis of our works. Now, having settled that, we are free to express our questions and concerns, and what we'll find is that the Bible answers them all in a way that is consistent with the sovereignty of God in salvation, and does so in a way that does not require us to mangle texts.

For example: What about the passages that talk of God's love for the world (eg. John 3:16)? The best answer is to realize that sin corrupted much more than the souls of mankind. It also was destructive to all creation, and as well, brought chaos to the realm of spiritual authority. Weeds and natural disasters testify to creation's corruption and futility (see: Genesis 3:17ff; Romans 8:19-21) while the demonic activity described in the New Testament demonstrate the extent to which Satan and his demons have gained a certain amount of control over the created realm. So, when sin came in and brought such devastation to God's creation, He could have walked away. But John 3:16 describes the fact that God loved His creation so much that He sent Jesus as the means of redemption. And while it is true that the primary focus of redemption was mankind, it is also true (Romans 8:19-21) that the secondary beneficiary will be the created world. Does God love his world? Yes. Does He love all elements in it with His electing, redeeming "fore-loving" love? No. Certainly the fact that God will be glorified even in some being judged for eternity demonstrates that they were never objects of His redeeming love.

But what about my free will? Isn't God most glorified by the fact that I chose Him, and choose to love Him? Of course this is the question that most often flows out of a recognition of the fact that God saves sinners, and we don't initiate the salvation process ourselves. Very simply we need to understand that our idea of "free" will really doesn't exist. The Bible is clear that, in the case of the spiritually dead person, their will is not "free" at all. Paul describes it in Ephesians 4:17-19 as "darkened", "ignorant", and found in conjunction with "hardness of heart." Further, he boldly declares that those who have not yet been drawn to Jesus Christ are actually being "held captive by Satan to do his will" (2 Timothy 2:26). Now, of course, we all know by experience that we're not robots who are doing things that we can't control. So there must be a better way to understand our wills. And there is!

What we have to understand is that we are not robots, but it is not because our wills are free from outside influences. In fact, everyone of our choices is influenced by a million past experiences, preferences, etc. But, we are "free" to the extent that our actions flow out of our choices. We are free if, when we choose to do something, we can do it, if what we do is the result of a choice we have made to do it. So, if I choose to get up from this computer, and go for a walk, I have demonstrated freedom. If someone comes along and grabs me, and forces me back to my seat, and ties a rope around me, my freedom has been curtailed. I am no longer free, but a prisoner. My status is the result, not of my will, but someone else's.

When I act as a result of my own choice, I am considered a free, moral agent, and am therefore responsible for my actions. Even though my will, and the choices open to me are limited by my nature (eg. I cannot as a man choose to conceive and carry a baby), I am even still responsible for all those actions that flow from my own choices. I am constrained by my nature, but am nevertheless a free moral agent within the bounds of my nature.

How does this relate? Just this way. I chose to come savingly to Christ. I looked at my sin, and saw its reality; I looked at Jesus and saw the promise of salvation. I chose to entrust my entire life to Christ, and I came to realize that He was my Savior. I believed all of His promises and acted upon them in faith. All of those decisions flowed out of my will. I was never coerced; nor did I watch myself do something that I had not chosen to do. So, I was free because my actions were the result of my choice. But, as I studied Scripture more and more I found that the faith I had expressed was actually a gift to me from God (Ephesians 2:8-10). It never did begin in me; it began with God. He opened my blind eyes and deaf ears. His Spirit brought me life, and I responded in faith. I love because He first loved me.

So, then what about evangelism? Isn't that the next question? If God has chosen whom He will save, and if He does the saving, then why do we even worry about sharing the Gospel? Fair enough. Good questions. And there is an excellent answer if we will take Scripture as our authority. First, we share the Gospel because God commands us to do so. It may surprise you to understand that the conversion of souls is only one of the purposes in evangelism, and it isn't even the primary one! The primary reason we share the story and message of God's rescue mission in Christ is to promote His glory through the story of His grace! We magnify His greatness and goodness when we declare the Gospel! That is our primary task: we exist to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, and evangelism does so regardless of whether or not people respond in faith. Secondly, God has not only chosen whom He will save, He has also chose the means by which He will save them, and it is the Gospel. The parable of the sower and soils makes this clear (Mark 4). God could save folks without the Gospel and without us. But He has determined that His glory is best seen when those He has rescued declare His greatness through the Gospel, to others in need of rescue. That's the way it has always been. Third, I have never met someone who really thinks that we don't need or want to share the Good News with others. Actually, if you've been re-vitalized by the Gospel, you just can't keep quiet about it! It's fun to share Good News.

In closing let me remind you of Jesus' words in John 6 (It's always good to end with Jesus!). He had just fed the 5000, and now uses the bread illustration to speak about spiritual life. He challenges them in regard to their "work" by which they are trying to gain eternal life. He calls them rather to believe. They ask him for a sign, to validate His call to believe Him. He says the "bread" sign should be enough. Then He goes into a very important argument: He starts by saying that "all the Father gives me will come to me (vs. 37a) and the one who comes I will certainly not cast out." This raises some questions: What does it mean "those the Father gives me?" It is clear that Jesus is here making a distinction. Some will come; some will not. Those whom God has given will come, guaranteed. And, all who come will be kept. Notice the sequence: The Father gives some to the Son; all the "given" ones come to the Son; all the given ones who come to the Son will be kept by the Son. Pretty cool! But, then Jesus gets into another part of the discussion in vs. 44 in response to the people's idea that Jesus isn't "all that." Jesus states quite clearly: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Wow! So, the Father gives some to the Son; all those who are given come to the Son. All the given ones who come to the Son are kept. And it turns out that all that come to the Son have been drawn by the Father. That's what Jesus says, and consequently, that's what our theology must represent and rest in. As a former "dead in trespasses and sins" guy, with no ability to understand the things of God, and with a darkened understanding, a hard heart, and a will in bondage to Satan, I for one am so glad that my rescue from the domain of darkness wasn't dependent upon my intellect, will or personal activity. Jesus paid it all, and the Spirit applied it to my heart and life, opening my eyes and granting me faith. I exercised the faith, and my actions of faith flowed from my choice meaning that I acted freely, but in response to God's sovereign prior work in my life. He "fore-loved" me, and I love Him for it, and will forever! Soli deo gloria

Hope this helps,

David