Radio Free Geneva: DeCalvinizing Romans 8 with Leighton Flowers

They keep repeating it, and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a biblical truth.

Jesus stands outside the tomb of Lazarus, he says, Lazarus, come out, and Lazarus said, I can't,

I'm dead. That's not what he did, Lazarus came out. Do you mean to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ?

Well, I can talk over your head like that.

I know the Hebrew, the Greek, I've done theology, you can tell I know. Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things?

Um, no. Some new

Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars just as they drink beer and wine.

Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief. A verse like that to him, you know what it would sound like if he were listening to it?

He wouldn't make any sense to him, a self -righteous, legalistic, deceived jerk. And you need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism, now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to...

I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge. Then don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it.

You're not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat.

There's a reason to have that, the choice of that meat. From maids to...

Deep beneath the faculty cafeteria in New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, safe from all those moderate

Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re -read George Bryson's book, we are

Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say for his own eternal glory.

Yes, indeed. Well, welcome to Radio Free Geneva. We probably should have done Radio Free Geneva the last time we were doing the program because it really was.

But we had some other things to talk about, so I guess it really wasn't a pure Radio Free Geneva.

But we are today, the reason being that Dr. Layton Flowers has helped us out.

I finally did locate it. I found that I had put his article wherein he seeks to present what

I think is meant to be exegesis of Romans chapter 8 verses 28 through 30 into a, well, sort of a scholarly article style format.

I had... I finally found it, don't know why Evernote didn't pull it up with what I searched for last time, but I finally found it and I had put it in there in early

April, as I recall, of this year and wanted to get to it, wanted to get to it.

There's a lot of things we want to get to and we just don't necessarily get to it in this life, actually.

Just lots of other things going on. And by the way, folks, there are some big things brewing for 2020 right now.

Big things are brewing. Yeah, yeah. We just posted the information, by the way, for the debate on the 13th of November for those of you in Atlanta.

But yeah, there's some there's some stuff coming up in 2020. It's going to be going to be great. I've been very, very busy today, but mainly just sitting around going tap, tap, tap, tap, phone, phone, tap, tap, tap, phone, phone, calendar.

Yeah, that'll work. That's just all morning long. It's been pretty well. Anyway, exciting stuff.

You can tell that I'm excited about it. But in the midst of all this, lo and behold, I think yesterday,

Layton Flowers posted a video that is only 10 minutes and 48 seconds long.

Did somebody give him a Coogee or something? I don't know. This is, you know, we could end all of this if I just sent him a

Coogee. If I sent him a Coogee, we'd be lifelong friends.

So the plan is to blind him? Well, no, I think

I think he I think he would like a Coogee. I think it would. I think it would. I think he'd like Coogees.

So you don't think so? You're a highly deceived man. Anyway, anyway,

I can't I can't discuss things like that with certain people, you know, that just haven't been given appreciation for the finer things in life.

So we'll go on from there. Okay, I want everybody to see that I'm rocking a proper sweater today.

Yeah, it's this this this is a proper sweater. It's not your ugly Christmas sweater.

It looks just like every other red sweater on the planet. It is an excellent sweater. Absolutely nothing distinctive about it whatsoever.

Yep. Go Grayton Prescott. Anyway. Anyway, so it'd be really funny if if Leighton ended up with like four

Coogees in his in his in his mailbox, you know, if it'll just stop all this,

I'll do it. Just eBay will be out of Coogees. I'd predict an

XL for for Leighton. That's okay. The Salvation Army will have plenty more. Oh, man.

Man. Man. Anyway, see what I have to put up with people? It is.

It's not easy. It's it's very good that my my office is on the other side of the other side of the place.

Anyway, he came up with he posted a video that's 10 minutes and 48 seconds long.

Everyone who is used to the two three hour Leighton Flowers videos was stunned.

And for me, since it's the same argument as the article, same quotations right down the line,

I'm like, oh, thank goodness, because one of the reasons I hadn't gotten to respond to the article is it's lengthy and it's difficult to spend the time to disambiguate all of the sources he's he's pulling from Forrester and Marston and William Lane Craig and N .T.

Wright and all three of those are coming from very different perspectives and very questionably orthodox perspectives and many things, many and many grounds, many levels.

And it just takes a long time to dig that stuff here. He's done the work of condensing it all down, and that'll make it a whole lot easier to to interact with.

So secondly, so you might be saying, oh, come on. Didn't you just do an entire program?

Well, at least an hour on the last program in response to David Allen and his comments on the same passage?

Well, not quite. This is Romans 8, 28 to 30. He was Romans 8, 32 to 34.

There's one verse in between. No. Yeah, obviously it's the same section.

And so what we're doing is we're dealing with, as we do on Radio Free Geneva, and I don't know why.

Maybe it's because we get so many new listeners and new viewers. But people ask, what's the difference between the dividing line and Radio Free Geneva?

There is no difference. Radio Free Geneva is a special episode of the dividing line we do specifically to respond to objections to Reformed theology.

And those objections can be really silly or they can be good. And normally they're in between someplace.

Sometimes they're silly and semi -good and so on and so forth. So this is just simply where we deal with that particular subject.

And we use that super awesome introductory music, which

Arabic gets all excited about. And all the cage -to -cage Calvinists, you know, run around inside their cages, bang their heads against the wall and things like that.

So I've seen some great memes about the

Radio Free Geneva theme. Anyway, so on Radio Free Geneva, we want to respond to what is the best arguments, the most common arguments, and then the arguments that are trending.

I mean, that's the sort of, you know, will some of these arguments pass away as far as you lose their currency because they don't have someone to promote them,

I suppose. But you've got to deal with what's being discussed right now and what people are running up against.

And this is, by the way, it's relevant. When I was down in Melbourne and Sydney, you know, a lot of times the questions that come up will be, you know,

I'm trying to bring Reformation to my church, but I'm running into this, running into that. And man, these programs have been really helpful to people, literally globally.

So you never know when you're going to be dealing with the exact objection, the exact issue that someone's struggling with, haven't found an answer to.

And so here we are. That's what we will continue to do while we have the opportunity to do it. Like I said,

Michael Brown can't livestream right now. He's in a YouTube timeout. And the great thing about YouTube is they don't even have to bother to tell you why.

They just do it to you. And well, they did, actually, I'll take that back. They, well, they told him what the video was.

They didn't tell him what it was about the video. And they let the same video stay up on another channel. So the inconsistencies.

But that's the way it works. That's what we're facing today. So when

I saw this video, it was decalvinizing Romans 8, 28 to 30.

So you get some idea of what we're going to be listening to when you get the idea of decalvinizing

Romans 8, 28 to 30. Let me just summarize. We'll listen to it.

You're welcome, Leighton. I'm going to quadruple your audience by playing it.

We'll play it so that no one can say, oh, you didn't, you know, whenever you skip like 30 seconds someplace, you can get to the next point.

So we'll say, ah, see, that's what you couldn't deal with. And it's like, whatever. We'll play it.

And then we'll respond to it. We will deal with the fundamental argument being that what

Romans 8, 28 to 30 is actually stating. And in fact, oh,

I had a nice, I had this queued up, oh, drat, I had this queued up to a real nice summary statement.

And it seems to have disappeared or I scrolled it up or something.

That's a shame. Anyway, fundamentally, let me see if it was down towards, oh, never mind.

There's a lot of conversation here. So maybe I was closer to it than I actually thought. There is a summary statement that was given here.

And let me see. Let me just get one more time, one more shot here.

All right. Anyway, the idea is that this section of Romans 8 is being written to believers who are suffering.

And so it's basically saying, God in the past knew the

Jews and was faithful to his promises to those who loved him and were called to follow him.

That was the specific terminology. That's what I wanted to find. It might actually, I think it comes up in the, that's right, it comes up in the video.

That's where it was. We'll keep watching for that toward the end of the video. There is a nice summary statement there. Not the called according to his purpose, but called to follow him.

Two completely different things, but that's the idea. So God knew in the past faithful Jews who loved him and were called to follow him.

And so when we bring those things to mind, then we can be confident that God will work everything to our good and make all the bad things work to good just as he did for them.

There's nothing here about predestination, election. We can decalvinize it.

And the emphasis will be upon understanding foreknown without any element of active choice or choosing on the part of God.

It becomes a passive state of knowledge on God's part.

So the first verb in the whole chain in Romans 8 is made to have a meaning, a completely different syntactical meaning than all the rest of the verbs in the text.

Now that's not going to be defended, but that's what he does. And there are a few people, very few people, it's an incredibly minority interpretation down to the history of the church, but there you go.

That's what we're going to see. So sit back, get yourself, I've got some diet root beer over here.

Get yourself a seat in the chair and let's listen to what Leighton Flowers has to say here.

Romans 8, 28 through 30 is one of the most referenced passages by Calvinists to support their view of individual election to effectual salvation.

Verse 28 reads, and we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him and who have been called according to his purpose.

Now before proceeding, let's look at the context of the passage. Remember what we've learned.

A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text. Earlier in the chapter,

Paul wrote, we know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up into the present time.

Paul goes on to encourage the believers that we wait eagerly for the hope of our glorification as we endure through the sufferings today.

And he reminds us that the spirit will help us when we pray in our weakness with groanings and words that we cannot possibly even understand.

In verse 28, there is a shift to provide comfort for believers who in their weakness are suffering.

And Paul reminds the Christians, we know that in all things God will work things out for good.

He will redeem the bad that is happening for those who love him, those of us who have been called according to his purpose.

And how do we know that God will do this? Well, just look at all that God has done for those who followed him before, which leads right into verse 29, for those he foreknew.

Notice the shift to the past tense in verse 29. He references those foreknown in the past.

In fact, all the verbs from verse 29 and following are in the aorist active indicative tenses, which indicates that the action of the verb has already taken place with respect to the subject of the verb.

So when we read verse 30, it says, and those he predestined, he also called.

Those he called, he also justified. Those he justified, he also glorified. Again, all in the past tense, which the most basic understanding grammatically would be in reference to those in the past.

Thus the word progenosko, which we translate into the word foreknew, can simply be in reference to those formerly known in times past.

In the Calvinism versus Arminianism debate since the 16th century that's dominated

Western Christianity, many have failed to look outside of the parameters set in the 16th century to understand various ways to interpret this passage that would be more consistent with the first century language.

Many modern scholars, therefore, only see two options with regard to this text. Progenosko either means foresee or it must mean to foreordain.

Prominent Calvinistic pastor John Piper, for example, says option one is

God foresaw our self -determined faith. We remain the decisive cause of our salvation and God responds to our decision to believe.

Option two, according to John Piper, is God chose us not on the basis of foreseen faith but on the basis of nothing in us.

He called us and the call itself creates the faith for which it calls. We believe that John Piper, like many modern day theologians, have simply set up a false dichotomy by presenting only two possible options to this text when more options are actually available.

In fact, the most simple, basic understanding of the word progenosko is formally known or known before.

Romans 11 .2 is the only other time the word progenosko is used in the letter to the

Romans. God did not reject his people whom he foreknew. This clearly is in reference to the

Israelites of the past who God knew formally. One other time the

Apostle Paul uses this term is in Acts 26, verse 4 and 5 when he speaks about his manner from youth and says they have known for a long time, which is again the word progenosko, simply interpreted as knowing something in the past.

So the term progenosko or foreknew simply means to formally know or to know before.

It does not need a lot of philosophical esoteric baggage attached to it. It's a very simple word and just as Paul uses it in Acts and in Romans 11 .2,

it simply can be in reference to the Israelites of the past who loved God and were called according to his purpose.

Dr. William Lane Craig, in his book The Only Wise God, references the word study of Drs. Forrest and Marston, God's strategy in human history, saying quote

God foreknew them or knew them of old, thus it does not mean that God entered into some former time into a relationship with the

Israelites of today. It means that he entered a two -way relationship with the Israel that existed in early

Old Testament times and he regards the present Israelites as integral with it.

Dr. William Newell, a friend and colleague of D .L. Moody and R .A. Torrey, taught thousands of people as a

Bible teacher in Moody's Bible College. In his book Romans Verse by Verse, he discusses that God quote had acquaintanceship with the

Israelites of the past, so it was not quote mere divine pre -knowledge of certain individuals but a real intimate pre -acquaintanceship.

So what was Paul's intention in this passage? I believe he simply is saying,

Christians, don't worry, we know from past experience that God always works out everything for those who love

God and are called to follow him. If you want proof, look at those God previously knew, loved and called in the past.

He determined them to be conformed to the image of his son, so that his son would become the firstborn of many brethren.

What better example of God working out all things together for good than his work through the Israelites of old to bring the

Messiah to this world for the redemption of all mankind. While I am convinced that the term progenosco is best understood as in reference to those of the past, there are other viable interpretations from a non -Calvinistic perspective.

Some classical Arminians have simply understood foreknown as to mean foreseen in the sense that God simply knows beforehand who is going to have faith and those are the ones he is predestined to be conformed into the image of his son.

Some non -Calvinists believe that God's foreknowledge of an individual's faith is the basis for his decision to save them and predestine them to be conformed to the image of Christ.

Calvinists often caricature this position by saying something like, God looks through the quarters of time to see who will believe and therefore elects those individuals.

And then they paint all non -Calvinists as to holding this position. What must be understood is that on this perspective,

God is omniscient, not omni -deterministic, which means that God's knowledge is rooted in his eternal nature as God, not his ability to look through the quarters of time, which is why this is a caricature painted by Calvinists to dumb down this perspective and make it sound unreasonable.

Another non -Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 8 .29 is to understand the word prognosco or foreknown to be in reference to those known in Christ through faith.

This is known as corporate election. It observes that the election of God's people in the

Old Testament was a consequence of the choice of an individual who represented the group, the corporate head and representative.

So from this perspective, the verse might mean, for those God foreknew would be in Christ by faith, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his

Son. I believe any of these interpretations are more valid than that introduced by Calvinism and their golden chain of redemption, as seen exemplified here.

What Romans 8 .28 -30 or maybe even just 29 and 30 would be called, would be called what we see as the golden chain of redemption as it was classically known.

In other words, there are links within that chain, whereas none of them are ever broken. So if you are a part of any one of those, you will make it to the end of those.

And it starts with the foreknowing of God and all eternity passed and the predestination moves on to the calling, the justification and the glorification and there is not a broken link in any of that.

So Calvinist more fatalistic interpretation of the word prognosco is understood as forechosen or foreordained and thus those who are foreknown in eternity past are fated to believe when they are called and then they are justified and glorified for reasons that are beyond their control, which logically entails that all other people are fated to damnation for reasons beyond their control.

As John Calvin himself wrote, quote, by predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man.

All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation.

And accordingly, as each has been created for one or the other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death.

There is no basis on which to conclude that most people are fated to unbelief for reasons that are beyond their control, which is ultimately the logical end of the

Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 8, 28 through 30. As Paul reminded

Timothy, this is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

Please like. Okay. Please like. All right. So there's the argument and there's some extraneous stuff at the end that we didn't really necessarily need to get into, but we will deal with that when it comes up.

So what I'm going to do is instead of replaying it visually, I'm going to move it out of the way, and we'll listen to the audio and respond to the audio, and I will be looking at what we have in the

New Testament. I don't know if Rich wants to do the screen there or whatever, but we will be responding to the points as they were brought up.

So is it a valid – well, first of all, we are told every one of the synergistic interpretations are better than the one that recognizes the golden chain of redemption, which is an amazing statement.

They're all better. So okay. All right. So with that, did we get a clear understanding of what was said?

Let me – here's the – I found it, and I marked where it was.

Here is the paraphrase. This is what I was mentioning before him.

Christians, don't worry. We know from past experience that God always works out everything for those who love

God and are called to follow Him. If you want proof, look at those

God previously knew, loved, and called in the past. He determined them to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that His Son would become the firstborn of many brethren.

That is the interpretive paraphrase that Dr.

Flowers himself provides. Is that consistent? Does that do justice to the text?

Would that lead into the next section, where Paul talks about the unnecessary work of Christ, the elect of God, their justification?

Is this consistent, or is this, as I believe it to be, a desperation attempt to get around what the text is plainly saying by fundamentally changing its meaning?

Well, let's find out and get into it here, and now we'll go point -by -point.

Earlier in the chapter, Paul wrote, We know that the whole creation has been groaning, as in the pains of childbirth, right up into the present time.

Paul goes on to encourage the believers that we wait eagerly for the hope of our glorification.

Now once again, I will simply point out, there's always two ways to approach the

Scripture. And in this instance, one way hears the focus upon mankind, the other hears the focus upon what

God is doing that has impact upon mankind, but it's the redemptive work of God in all of creation that is in view, that is going to end up in that final hymn of praise, who will separate us from the love of Christ Jesus, and height or depth, and everything else is found at the end, is not about us.

It's about what God's been doing. And so, even when we talk about eagerly hoping for glorification, that's all the stuff that God is doing.

This is the extension of God's power. Very important to keep that in mind. He endures the sufferings today, and he reminds us that the

Spirit will help us when we pray in our weakness, with groanings, and words that we cannot possibly even understand.

In verse 28, there's a shift to provide comfort for believers. Now, to provide comfort for believers,

Romans 8 .28 definitely provides comfort, but is that what is being said here? When it says, we know, at the beginning of verse 28, is this saying we just look back at history, or is this a present knowledge that we have?

That's what Oida men would mean here, is that this is a present knowledge. We know, this is a conviction that we have concerning the nature of God, that God causes all things to work together.

There's some textual variants here, there are a couple of manuscripts that want to make it very clear this is God who does these things, but God is the one who works all things together for the good.

And then we have two phrases. We have, Tois agaposin ton theon, to the ones loving

God. And then we have, Tois kata prothesin kleitos usin.

So you have two phrases that are being used in parallel to one another, and they are appositive.

That is, they are renaming the same group. It's not one group, it's separate from another group. And so, we know that to the ones loving

God, that is, the ones who are called according to his purpose, God works all things according to the good.

So we're not the focus there. It's God working all things to the good.

And even those who love God are defined as those who are the called according to his purpose.

Now, it's interesting that in looking both at the article and at the video, the element of this, which is the phrase, so purpose is one, two, three, four words in front of praegno, which is praegnosko, to know, to know beforehand.

So this is the immediate context of foreknowledge, not foreknowledge as a noun, but to foreknow as a verb.

This is something God is doing. The immediate context includes those who are called.

We don't have an accordance available? Okay, all right. I was just, well,

I'm sitting here talking about it. So the opening is that the door is open according to his purpose, right here, according to, and here's the called, see, there's the article with called, the according to purpose called ones, okay?

And so here up above, here you have twice, to the ones loving

God, to the ones according to purpose, the called ones.

So it's important to recognize that when you're talking about the meaning of a word, it's one thing to run off to other texts, that's important.

Where else did Paul use this? Where else is it used in the New Testament? But its meaning is determined by its immediate usage in its context, first and foremost.

And in the immediate context of, here's praegno, praegnosko, in the immediate context of that term, you have election.

You have God's purpose. Now, let's notice that praegno is used a few other places in the

New Testament. And you look it up here and we see that here is, blow it up a little bit more, there you go, it's a little bit larger.

So we know here is according to his purpose, Romans 8 28. Well, Ephesians 1 11, it's the same term, in him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.

Here is the purpose again, and here's the counsel of his will, and one word away, praorizo, to predestine according to his purpose.

So this purpose, in Paul's thinking, is the very will of God that then becomes expressed in his predestination, in his activities within time.

In Ephesians 3 11, this was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our

Lord. The purpose of the ages, the eternal purpose, which he did literally, which he realized in Christ Jesus our

Lord. So here you have the same term, notice in the exact same forms found here in Romans 8 28, according to his purpose, and then finally 2

Timothy 1 9, who saved us, notice these are all in satirological context, he saved us and called us with a holy calling.

So you've got calling here both in the verbal form and the noun form, called us a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own what?

Prophecy, purpose, and grace, which was granted to us in Christ Jesus before all ages, before the ages began.

So every use we have of this term is deeply satirological and deeply predestinarian, using the very term predestination in Ephesians 1, very clearly the same meanings in every other place where it's used.

So that's its meaning here too, right? So we would have to recognize that and go, oh, to those who are called according to his purpose is

God's sovereignty. But did you remember, we'll see it again, but did you remember the very subtle re -rendering of that phraseology in the section we read?

Those who are called to follow him, that's not what it's about, that's not even close to what it's about, not even close to what it's about.

So one of the most important preceding terms that establishes the context in which we're dealing, gone.

It's not even just – and the shift is to us and people that God knew in the past and instead away from God's predestining activity, because that's what we don't want it to be about, so that's how you do it.

So, those who are called according to his purpose. So verse 28 says, verse 28 is a shift to provide comfort for believers.

I don't accept that. That's an invalid interpretation.

Who in their weakness are suffering. And Paul reminds the Christians, we know that in all things

God will work things out for good. He will redeem the bad that is happening for those who love him, those of us who have been called according to his purpose.

Who have been called according to his purpose. I don't think that latencies, that those are huge, glowing, neon signs of God's sovereignty, and that that determines who the ones who love him are, too.

I mean, you look at Paul's anthropology, which he laid out in chapters 1, 2, and 3, who loves

God? Those that he has changed. And even at the beginning of Romans 8, same chapter, who can submit to the law of God?

Only those who have been made alive in Christ. And how do we know that God will do this?

Well, just look at all the – Well, it doesn't say how do we know. It says, we know. In other words, there is already a conviction on the part of believers.

We know God, and we know what God has done, not how do we know.

And nowhere is Paul saying, oh, look at what God did in the past. This is setting things up for the redefinition of prognostico, to remove – and this is the key – if you don't get anything else, get this.

It is Leighton Flower's intention to remove from pro -egno, which is an active verb, it's something

God does, any element of active choice.

Why would he want to do that? Because the active choice in salvation in a synergistic system is man, not

God. So, what you've got to do is get rid of anywhere where God is the one making an active choice that actually results in the true salvation of individuals, because synergism dies at that point.

So, what you're going to see is he's going to change the meaning of pro -egno, and he's going to remove from it any element of choice and activity on God's part.

God just knew people back then. Well, God knew everybody back then. God's known everybody from the beginning, so everybody's foreknown.

So, if you actually say, well, God knew folks back then, yeah. He knew the Egyptians and the

Babylonians and the Assyrians, just as he knew the Israelites. There is a personhood, a personal attribute to the relationship that God has to those he foreknows, because there is a choice, because it's something

God does. So, we could properly say God did not foreknow

Pharaoh, in the sense of the term being used here.

For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed. To change that to just, he knew some

Jews back then, and he did these things for them, is to create in the first verb an understanding and force that you then allow in the rest of the verbs, but you can't allow in that one.

We can allow the same force all the way through, because we're allowing the text to speak, because we're not trying to read something out of it.

We're trying to let everything stay in it that is actually there, including called according to his purpose.

Not according to our purpose, his purpose. Okay, so how do we know?

God has done for those who followed him before, which leads right... Now, see, for those who followed him before, see where the shift is going?

God did these things for those who followed him before. This is all man. So God's responding to man's actions.

Instead of, God has a purpose, he calls according to that purpose, and therefore, you have the context for foreknowing.

For those whom he foreknew. All right? Into verse 29.

For those he foreknew. Notice the shift to the past tense in verse 29.

Now, this is going to be very important to his argumentation. Very, very important to his argumentation. And the problem is that, and I had a conversation, actually had almost the same conversation with someone at ReformCon recently.

Why are these all in the past tense? We have to be very careful.

We've all, especially when you're first learning the language, you fall into this trap fairly regularly.

But, for example, these are in what's called the aorist. And generally, the aorist is referring to something that happens in the past.

But not always. That is, the aorist is the simplest form of expression in the

Greek language. That's the simplest way to say that something happened. You have to start complicating your verbs a little bit when you move them into the present.

For us, the present seems to be more of the basic. And we teach Greek wrong, to be honest with you, in some ways, because we start with the present, and then we move to other forms, not recognizing that, in reality, the most basic roots are normally the aorist roots, rather than present tense.

And you start looking at the endings, and there's more going on. Anyways, the point is this.

The emphasis in the Greek is on the kind of action, only secondarily on the time of the action when the context provides indicators of that.

And so we, in our thinking, tend to go, well, I don't get why this was all in the past tense, and why isn't it, if this was happening now in the present tense?

If you're going to be talking about God's actions in time, how else would you put it?

So in other words, we might try to sit here and think, well, you know, writing in the New Testament, you know, does

Paul have knowledge of how long the period of time is going to be where God's going to be gathering his elect people?

How long the church age is, as we might describe it in that way.

And so would he be using future tenses for people up there, thinking they're going to be words, and so I'm going to need to use a future tense to talk about what's going to be happening up there, or is he simply describing the reality of what

God has done? It wouldn't make any sense to use the present tense. It wouldn't make any sense to use the present tense to talk about God's decree that is forming the very fabric of time.

What other tense are you going to use? In other words, if the tense that is found is the default, then you can't read a whole lot into it.

If it's not the default, then you might wonder, why is it not the default? Is there something here that I need to be seeing?

But the aorist here is the default. It's the simple statement. If you put it in anything else, let's say you put it in the present.

So God is right now doing these things? How can you put glorified into it in that sense?

Now, you can talk about our present reality, but we're talking about God's decree, which has given form to all of time.

So the only way to express that is God determined to do this, this, and this, and that's why it's worked out that way.

And then there's going to be present tense realities. So you look at Ephesians chapter 1, predestined time passed, but now we believe because of that.

We are believing now because of what happened back then. So to say, well, you know, why does this shift into the past tense?

And so this is just God talking about people in the past. Why is that? Because you don't want the system that is being defended cannot have

God doing something in the past that determines present action. So God knew people in the past.

We need to look at their example and we'll be encouraged by that is all you can end up getting out of this. Whereas in reality, already the text has closed the door to this interpretation because it says we know.

We know. So Paul and his audience know that God causes all things.

This is where the eternal decree of God interfaces with time, it's called providence. God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love

God, and who are they? Those who are called according to his purpose.

That included the believers at Rome. And so the believers at Rome are included in those whom he foreknew.

To say, well, no, is to go, wait a minute, God didn't know them from of old?

Does God have all knowledge of future events? This is why quoting from Molinists, Opentheists, and others creates a real problem as far as the sources for Dr.

Flowers' concern, because they all come up with different answers for that particular thing. But are you saying that God only knew people in the past?

Does he know the Romans? We know that God's doing these things, and he doesn't say, just look at the past to find out.

In any way, that's not there. It's being read in, but that's not in the text, and that doesn't make any sense because in the middle of the next sentence, in talking about conforming, being conformed to the image of his son, which is what is happening to the believers in Rome, so that he would be the firstborn among many brethren, the brethren are the people that are being written to, not just people in the past, okay?

So, the whole attempt to read in some kind of limitation to only past events just makes the text make no sense at all, as we will see.

He references those foreknown in the past. In fact, all the verbs from verse 29 and following are in the aorist active indicative tenses.

There's no such thing as aorist active indicative tenses. There is an aorist active tense, but not tenses.

I'm not sure where the plural came from there. Which indicates that the action of the verb has already taken place with respect to the subject of the verb.

Not always. There is such thing as a nomic aorist, speaking of timeless truths that is not...

There are times when the aorist does not contain any emphasis at all upon the timing of the action, but its whole emphasis is upon how the action takes place, and it's undefined.

The aorist is the simplest... The aorist says the least. You build on the aorist for your other tenses.

You can see that in the formation of your prefix vowels and your endings and everything.

You're building upon that. And so you're coming up from the simplest form, the earliest form, the aorist, in your study of Greek.

So when we read verse 30, it says, And those he predestined he also called.

Those he called he also justified. Those he justified he also glorified. Now, I just simply have to stop and point out, glorification, even in Romans 8, what are we hoping for?

A future glorification. So why is this in the aorist? No one in the past has yet been glorified.

So, clearly, Paul is not intending the golden chain to be taken as a...

To force the aorist into a historical narrative here is to completely miss the point.

These are things God does, they are a certainty, but they are all his actions.

So notice, these whom he predestined. So where does that come from?

Foreknew. For those whom he foreknew, active verb, he also predestined, active verb.

Now, does predestination involve choice?

And does it involve action? Yes. So foreknowing must involve what?

Choice and action. But the way he's using it, he's turning it into a functional passive.

God knew about these guys. Well, yeah, he knew about everybody. And if you read the choice part out, then you're left going, well,

God knew everybody that existed back then. He knew all the pagans. God foreknew every single person that pounded on the door of the ark before they drowned.

But he did not, having foreknown them, predestined them to be conformed the image of his son, and therefore call them, justify them, and glorify them.

So, one of the most important things to learn here is when you are translating the language, the verbs will cast light upon the other verbs that are being used by the author.

And if you find someone who's trying to limit the content of one verb, but not the others, there's probably a reason for it.

There's probably a reason for it. In this case, well, let's look at a little bit more of what he says about foreknowing.

Again, all in the past tense, which the most basic understanding grammatically would be in reference to those in the past.

No, I'm sorry, I dispute that. That's a simplistic statement that I do not believe you can substantiate.

That would have to be derived from the context, and the context militates strongly against it.

Because it's, we know, we are the ones who are called according to purpose, that calling according to purpose connects to foreknowledge, predestination, calling, the whole nine yards.

No, the context says the exact opposite. This assertion disrupts and tears up the context.

Thus the word prognosco, which we translate into the word foreknew, can simply be in reference to those formerly known in times past.

Those formerly known in times past. Think about what that means. To say formerly known in times past.

First of all, we have to be very careful that we do not attempt to look at God's knowledge as a mirror image of our own.

Our knowledge is completely based upon temporality. We do not know the future.

We do not have exhaustive knowledge of the present. And as I get older, the more

I'm reminded, we forget a lot about the past. So our knowledge is derivative and limited.

And so when we say known by God in the past, that's everybody.

That's everyone. So if you go with the allegedly basic meaning, which ignores utilization, is an utter violation of lexical semantics.

But if you go with the basic meaning, God knew everybody in the past.

But that's plainly not Paul's intention. Even if you limit it to the

Jews of the past, as he's attempting to do, even though there's nothing in the text that says that, and there's no introduction of that concept, even if you limit it at that, you're still left with the reality that there's no delineation provided in the text that would allow you to say

God foreknew this people versus some other people.

God knew everybody. Well, yeah, but it's those who loved God. But those who loved

God is in apposition to the phrase those who are called according to His purpose.

So you can't, there's nowhere to hide. There are too many lights on in Romans chapter 8 to find a dark corner to come up with these other ways of getting around what's actually being said.

So for those who before knew has to be an active verb. It's something God did, not something that happened to God or God just happened to know something.

This is an action on God's part that results in predestination of being conformed to the image of His Son.

Now, what is that all about? How is anyone conformed to the image of Jesus Christ outside of full on spirit brought on salvation?

Resurrection to spiritual life, being made a new creature. That's what it's about.

It's not just look at these people in the past that God was nice to. It's talking about the context is unbreakably soteriological.

It's salvific all the way through. So when we talk about being conformed to the image of His Son, how many people in the past were conformed to the image of His Son?

I'm afraid with the choice meets stuff a few months ago, we might actually be in a position where Dr.

Flowers might actually say, well, anyone who's been conformed to the image of Christ in the past was so because they were choice meets.

In other words, they were the people that were good enough, smart enough in and of themselves to choose to love

God rather than we love Him because He first loved us, we have to graze to spiritual life.

No one's able to submit themselves to the law of God. Law of God says, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, right? Romans 8 says nobody can do that if they're spiritually dead.

They need to be made spiritually dead. That's the same chapter. All right? The same chapter says that.

So I'm not just reading that in. That's right there and then. Be conformed to the image of His Son so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

So there is a purpose. This is, whenever, when you read

Paul, you become accustomed to certain forms in Paul.

Aes Ta with the infinitive. Aes Ta with the infinitive. It's all over the place. And that's what we have right here.

Image of His Son, Aes Ta Aenei. So, Aes Ta, the infinitive,

Aenei, so that He might be Prototokon, firstborn, en palois adelphois, amongst many brothers.

So, this is clearly what is being discussed here, is that it has always been

God's intention to redeem a particular people in Christ Jesus. That's quite true.

The point for the Romans is, and that's what He's doing amongst you. You are the called, you're being conformed to the image of Christ, you have this firm foundation, that's why no charge will be brought against God's elect, and therefore, nothing can separate us from the love of God.

Consistency all the way through, straight through. Just like John 6, just like Ephesians 1, just like Romans 9, one side can just walk word, word, verse, verse, straight through it.

Don't have to jump off into the woods over here. Don't have to jump off into the woods over there. The other side can not do it.

It's just not, they can't do it. We keep waiting, and we don't get it. They don't get it.

So, just a few of the things right in the context that immediately start telling us, we've got

Houston, there is a problem. Well, Houston had a big problem last night. Nobody will understand that five years from now.

I can't even remember who won last year. So, it's just sort of, yeah, it's sad, anyway.

In the Calvinism versus Arminianism debate, since the 16th century, that's dominated Western Christianity, many have failed to look outside of the parameters set in the 16th century to understand various ways to interpret this passage.

I'm not going to completely disagree with that, but I would simply point out that not all the

Reformers were ignorant of first century Christianity, or second, or third. In fact,

I would say most of the people back there were more familiar with the historical context of theological discussion than the vast majority of people are today.

It would be more consistent with the first century language. Many modern scholars, therefore, only see two options with regard to this text.

Prognosco either means foresee, or it must mean to foreordain.

Prominent Calvinistic pastor John Piper, for example, says option one is

God foresaw our self -determined faith. We remain the decisive cause of our salvation, and God responds to our decision to believe.

Which I believe he actually lays out as a possible understanding, just not his own view, that's still better than the golden chain, even though he then accuses us of strawmanning these views by saying

God looks down the corridors of time. I did not understand how anything he said demonstrated a strawman with that perspective, because that is what you're saying.

Not your position, but it's the position of a large number of people that we've reviewed in this program over and over and over and over again.

It's exactly how they saw it. So there wasn't any strawman there. What is a strawman? I told somebody on Twitter, I point this, did you notice how many times he used the term fated?

He knows that fate is impersonal. We point this out over and over again. Fate is impersonal.

God doesn't do anything by fate. Fate is not rolling, you know, fate is rolling a dice, and God's not in charge of it or something, which even then

God is. But yeah, that's a specific choice on his part.

Option two, according to John Piper, is God chose us not on the basis of foreseen faith, but on the basis of nothing in us.

He called us and the call itself creates the faith for which it calls. We believe that John Piper, like many modern day theologians, have simply set up a false dichotomy by presenting only two possible options to this text when more options are actually available.

In fact, the most simple basic understanding of the word prognosco is formally known or known before.

Again, this kind of argument ignores the fact that the verb is being used by an author in a context and in a series of verbs, and to take it in this way, where there is no active element of choice on the part of the one making, doing the action of the verb, whereas every other verb does, is the fundamental error of this particular presentation.

Romans 11 .2 is the only other time the word prognosco is used in the letter to the

Romans. God did not reject his people whom he foreknew. This clearly is in reference to the

Israelites of the past. Who God knew formally. —Who God knew formally.

How about who God chose formally? How about who God chose formally? Let's put this one to bed, because this really does need to be something that is addressed.

When—let me just—okay, and this may be dismissed, but Kittles' Theological Dictionary in the

New Testament, in specifically defining prognosco, it says, in the New Testament, prognoscine—that's the infinitival form—is referred to God.

His foreknowledge, however, is an election or foreordination of his people or Christ.

Volume 1, page 715. Now, where does that come from? Well, if you simply go back into the

Old Testament and look at what came to us from the

Old Testament, you will understand. And I want to go through this mainly because Rich spent so much time today trying to get the

Hebrew term yadah to format correctly on the internet, that if I didn't, I think he'd cry.

And even though he's wearing a really boring red sweater,

I still am going to do this for him. So I need to refresh it, and yadah will—okay, let's see if this is going to work.

There you go! See? And, folks, just so you know, if you go to aomin .org

and you go to the very bottom where the search engine is, but won't be for long, hopefully, it'll be a more prominent place, and put the word foreknowledge in, this article is going to pop up from 30 years ago, this month, when the internet did not exist.

Yes, yes, yes. Yeah, I've been talking about this for a long time. So this is an article from 30 years—1989, 30 years ago.

The basic Hebrew term translated to know in the Old Testament is yadah. Both Greek terms noted above, genoska and oida, are used to translate this one

Hebrew word. Genoska is used over 500 times as the translation of yadah in the Septuagint. And what does this term mean in Hebrew?

Does it refer simply to having intellectual knowledge? No, indeed. When the Hebrew speaks of God's knowledge, something far more than just bare cognizance of facts is in view.

Let's look at some passages where this will be seen, and see if some of the fuller meaning of yadah can be discovered.

Yadah is the Hebrew term to know. Before I formed in the womb, I knew, yadah you.

Before you were born, I consecrated you. I have appointed you a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah 1 .5. Here, God says that he knew

Jeremiah, even before he formed the prophet in the womb. Does this mean that God simply had knowledge of the future actions of Jeremiah?

Clearly not. For the parallelism of the passage indicates that the indicates is capitalized there.

And he's on it immediately. That the knowing is to be understood as being synonymous with God's consecration of him, and is appointing him as a prophet to the nations.

Hence, the term refers to an action on God's part in choosing Jeremiah. God is active in his knowing, in his choosing.

The object of his knowing is not a fact, but a person. God's yadah of Jeremiah is personal.

Is this kind of understanding a common feature of Hebrew thinking? Indeed, it is. For the Jewish person, knowledge is very personal. One cannot know something truly in, capitalized, the

Hebrew system of thought, simply by standing afar off and thinking about an object. By the way, I'm saying that so he can find the...

I'm doing online editing while reading it, and it's because this was scanned in. Again, it was 1989.

It was 30 years ago. We had to scan this in. When Adam knew Eve in Genesis 4 -1, the result was the conception of a child.

Obviously, then, this knowing of Eve by Adam was far more than a simple understanding of her existence.

His yadah of his wife was intensely personal. And when we speak of God's knowing someone, we are speaking of his entering into personal relationship with that individual.

This is seen very clearly in... And so, let me stop. That would mean, if the simple meaning were to be used, that God, if God knew these people in the past, that he entered into relationship with them.

The beauty of foreknown is that what's actually being said is that God chooses to enter into relationship before we come into existence, just as it did with Jeremiah.

That's the beauty of it, which is lost when you run it through the synergism filters that has to remove all the beautiful stuff about God.

This is seen very clearly in Yahweh's encounter with Moses in Exodus 33. In verse 17, we hear God saying to Moses, I will do this thing for you for which you have spoken, for you have found favor in my sight, and I have known yadah you by name.

Earlier, Moses indicated that God has spoken these words to him before. Surely, we here see that God is not simply saying,

I know your name, but that something far more personal is in view here. The knowing of Moses's name is very personal.

God is indicating his gracious decision to enter into a very special and personal relationship with Moses.

The fact this passage figures so prominently in Paul's discussion of election in Romans 9 .15 is surely significant as well, for if Paul connects verse 19 of this chapter with God's predestination in Romans 9, surely his usage of foreknow in Romans 8 is drawn from here as well.

And then, this is a good one, the continued emphasis upon the personal nature of the object of God's knowledge is seen as well in Amos 3 .2,

where the nation of Israel is God's special covenant people is addressed, you only have I known yadah among all the nations of the earth.

Here, God asserts that he has known only the people of Israel. Again, bare factual knowledge cannot possibly be the meaning, as God surely knows that the other people exist, for he created them.

Instead, the word know means to choose, both the New American Standard Bible and the International Version render yadah here as chosen.

So prevalent is this sense of the Hebrew term when in reference to God, the Theological Dictionary of the

Old Testament comments, we find yadah in Amos 3 .2 as an expression for the special relationship between Yahweh and Israel, or election to service.

Next is 33 .12 -17, yadah characterizes a special election and call. In Jeremiah 1 .5,

the appointment of Jeremiah to prophetic office is characterized by yadah, long before his birth, Jeremiah had been chosen as a prophet.

So that emphasis in yadah is what comes into the

New Testament and is now being read out of one of its most beautiful uses in Romans chapter 8, which becomes the very basis for the hymn of praise, nothing will separate us from the love of God and Christ Jesus.

That foundation is found in the fact that he foreknew us, predestined us, called us, justified us.

Glorified us. It's all God's actions, which is why nothing can separate us.

You take that away and lots of things can separate us. And in many people's theologies, our own actions will separate us.

We're the ones that do it. All right, I got to keep going here. One other time the apostle Paul uses this term is in Acts 26 verse four and five, when he speaks about his manner from youth and says they have known for a long time, which is, again, the word prognosco, simply interpreted as knowing something in the past.

So the term prognosco... But again, no parallel. No parallel.

Because why? Because this is man's knowledge. Man has limited knowledge.

This isn't God foreknowing someone. Whenever God foreknows someone, it's personal knowledge.

He has foreknowledge of future events. That's a noun, because he created all things. He foreknows individuals, specifically

Israel, the elect, and Jesus. Now, when

Jesus is described as foreknown, is that just, oh yeah,

God knew Jesus. That didn't come up, but it is used.

It just says Paul didn't use it. And it is really hard to try to fit that one into this scheme that's being presented.

Yeah, well, God knew Jesus in the past. Really? You think? That Trinity thing sort of already said that, in essence.

So we could go on that for a while, but we won't. Or foreknew simply means to formally know or to know before.

It does not need a lot of philosophical, esoteric baggage attached to it.

Except that the authors actually use it in particular contexts that provide that baggage that is beautiful and important and happens to be completely contradictory to the synergistic traditionalist system that someone is attempting to defend.

It's a very simple word. And just as Paul uses it in Acts and in Romans 11 too, it simply can be in reference to the

Israelites of the past who loved God and were called according to his purpose. So that's what you want to limit it to.

It has nothing to do with Romans, which makes this passage completely incoherent.

Completely incoherent. We know that God causes all things to work together for good.

To those who love God, to those who are thee called according to his purpose, for those whom he used to know in the past,

Israelites, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his son, so he'd be the firstborn remaining brother back then.

It has nothing to do with you. Why does he go into all this stuff about all their salvation and stuff like that?

I mean, it sounds like he was a Calvinist back then, but now he's doing the free will thing? I don't know.

And those whom he predestined, he also called, those who he called, he also justified, those who he justified, he also glorified, what then shall we say to these things if God is for us who is against us?

Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Time out. Us? Paul, you're just talking about the people in the past.

But we're supposed to look back and be encouraged by them. Then why do you then say, what then shall we say to these things if God is for us?

Because everything he just said was about us, the people to whom he's writing right now.

It's just, it's so obvious that it's sort of hard.

Put yourself in my shoes. Sometimes it's really hard to try to deal with eisegetical attempts to get around what is so plainly right there.

If God is for us who is against us, he who did not spare his own son, but delivered him over for us all.

Do we have to go through this again? We've done it like three or four times over the past number of months. It's pretty, it's stunningly clear.

We did it in light of David Allen's attempts to get around it on the last program and demonstrated those attempts failed.

This attempt fails too. Notice that whenever, whether it's

Norman Geisler in Chosen but Free, whether it's Leighton Flowers now, whether it's

David Allen in the Atonement, whoever it is, they always break these texts up into parts.

Remember when Norman Geisler dealt with John 6? Remember the story? I gave you the background.

He'd deal with John 6, 37 over here and two chapters later, there'd be something about John 6, 40 and then over here is about something about John 6, 38.

But it was never a contextual flow because when you let the text speak in that way, it massively limits the coherent interpretations that can possibly be offered.

And that's the case here too. That's the case here. So limit this to Israelites in the past destroys the foundation for the entire section of promises that Christians have held on to so dearly for so long.

Dr. William Lane Craig in his book, The Only Wise God, references the word study of Drs. Forster and Marson.

It's Forster. Forster. See, it says Forster there. Forster and Marson, well -known Armenians.

If I recall correctly, there's something about early forms of open theism involved here as well.

And God's strategy in human history saying, God foreknew them or knew them of old.

Thus, it does not mean that God entered into some former time into a relationship with the Israelites of today.

Where does Israelites come from, by the way, here? There's nothing in the context.

That's being dragged in from someplace else. Just so that people notice that it's not actually there.

It means that he entered a two -way relationship with the Israel that existed in early

Old Testament times. And he regards the present Israelites as integral with it.

That would have really helped out the people in Rome. Dr. William Newell, a friend and colleague of D .L.

Moody and R .A. Torrey, taught thousands of people as a Bible teacher in Moody's Bible College.

In his book, Romans Verse by Verse, he discusses that God, quote, had acquaintanceship with the

Israelites of the past. So it was not, quote, mere divine pre -knowledge of certain individuals, but a real intimate pre -acquaintanceship.

I don't think that supports his point. Now, I don't like the term pre -acquaintanceship. But that doesn't support his point.

Because he's been saying we just need to use the basic meaning of the word, which really isn't the basic meaning of the word. Because he says it's not mere divine pre -knowledge, which is what he's saying the basic meaning of the word is.

But a real intimate pre -acquaintanceship, the very term intimate, communicates something there.

So what was Paul's intention in this passage? I believe he simply is saying Christians— Okay, so here's the paraphrase that lays it all out.

Worry, we know from past experience that God always works out everything for those who love

God and are called to follow him. If you want proof, look at those God previously knew.

Okay, so do I need to reemphasize? Those who love God and are called to follow him is not those who are called according to his purpose.

That's not the same thing. That is a—that is—that is—that is a message version.

Living Bible version. It's not a translation. That's not what the phrase actually means. The reason for rephrasing it this way is that gets rid of what's actually there, which is the divine purpose of God behind predestination.

In Paul's—Paul's consistent usage. We looked at all the uses. And he didn't. It's like he never even saw it.

It just didn't include it. That's—that's language that speaks specifically of God's formation of a particular people that he saves by Jesus Christ.

That's election right there. There's nothing in here about, you know, he creates a particular people, a particular, you know, the—the unnamed elect, and it's up to us to get ourselves into the elect by acts of faith and so on and so forth.

You don't get any of that. What better example of God working out all things together for good than his work through the

Israelites of old to bring the Messiah to this world for the redemption of all mankind? Except that's not the example he gives.

Leighton, that's not the example he gives. Um, if you want his interpretation, what then shall we say to these things?

If God is for us, who is against us? He would not spare his own son, but liven him over for us all.

How will we not also with him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies, etc.,

etc., etc. That's Paul's interpretation of what this good thing is.

And it's all about particular redemption, election, and all those things that some folks just can't seem to find.

While I am convinced that the term progenosco is best understood as in reference to those of the past, there are other viable interpretations from a non -Calvinistic perspective.

I'm finding it interesting because when, uh, when he was on Unbelievable a number of months ago, and one of the things that struck me was that whenever his position would be challenged, he would come back by saying, well, there's possibly this is possibly that's possibly this thing over there.

And that's what we're seeing here too. Um, now there are certainly places in scripture where people disagree about certain side issues, and it might be this and it might be that.

And especially when you get into some aspects of eschatology, the interpretation of some Old Testament text or something like that.

But given how much time, um, Dr. Flowers spends on this subject, um, it just seems strange to me, uh, that you would have this, well, here's some other possibilities too.

And they're all better than Calvinism. Maybe that's the whole point is that even if you don't agree with me, here's some other things to catch you on the way.

Um, so that, um, you know, the Latin, so at least something will catch you before you fall into a terrible, horrible pit called

Calvinism. Maybe that's how it's working. I don't know. Some classical Armenians have simply understood foreknown as to mean foreseen in the sense that God simply knows beforehand who is going to have faith.

And those are the ones he is predestined to be conformed into the image of his son. Some non -Calvinists believe that God's foreknowledge of an individual's faith is the basis for his decision to save them and predestined them to be conformed to the image of Christ.

Which is exactly what we mean when we say God looks down the quarters of time, sees who's going to believe in him, and elects them on that basis.

Calvinists often caricature this position by saying something like, God looks to the quarters of time to see who will believe.

Yeah, that's exactly what you just said. That's not a caricature. And therefore elects those individuals.

And then they paint all non -Calvinists as to holding this position. No, a

Molinist doesn't, an Opintheist doesn't. Wait, straw man alert! What must be understood is that on this perspective—

Okay, now listen, okay. I'm glad we got to this point. I'm going to try to wrap it up in seven minutes, but I'm glad we got to this point.

God is omniscient, not omnideterministic, which means that God's knowledge is rooted in his eternal nature as God, not his ability to look through the quarters of time, which is why this is a caricature painted by Calvinists to dumb down this perspective and make it sound unreasonable.

Does that make any sense to you? Doesn't make any sense to me. Because it's not—God is omniscient, not omnideterministic.

Okay, but how is God omniscient? Well, it's rooted in his nature as God. Okay, that doesn't answer the question.

Well, it's good enough. No, it's not, because I simply keep challenging people to say—to explain.

How can God have knowledge of the future actions of free creatures?

Just give me your understanding. Well, it's rooted in his nature. Okay, that's not answering the question.

If you wanted to simply say, I don't know, got no earthly idea, I go,

Isaiah tells us, and not on a metaphysical level of the exact mechanics, but when

God mocks the false gods, he says, tell us what happened in the past and why it happened. That means

God has that knowledge. God knows why everything happened in the past. Knows exactly why it happened in the past.

And given that human beings do some things that are just simply random, then, from our perspective, then we must be wrong about that.

God must have had a purpose even in that. That's the only way God can know the future as well, isn't it?

How does God know the future? Well, it's just, you know, it's grounded in his being as God. Okay, that's not an answer.

You can call it an answer if you want, but it's not actually an answer. So I guess he feels that by coming up with that type of an answer, you're actually giving an answer when you're just going,

I don't have any idea. But the one thing I do know is you're wrong. And so there is no caricature.

The point is that if we exist and God takes in knowledge of what we are going to do, then we're the ones that determine the outcome of God's actions.

There's no way around it. That's why open theists go, that's why we can't believe that.

That's why we're going to say God does not have knowledge of future events. Another non -Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 8 .29

is to understand the word prognosco, or foreknown, to be in reference to those known in Christ through faith.

This is known as corporate election. It observes that the election of God's people in the

Old Testament was a consequence of the choice of an individual who represented the group.

The corporate head and representative. So from this perspective, the verse might mean for those

God foreknew would be in Christ by faith, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his son.

I don't even think that would be an accurate description of corporate election, if I'm being honest with you, because Christ becomes the elect one.

And Christ is said to be foreknown and chosen as Messiah. But the idea is that you then have the freedom to either enter into Christ or not enter

Christ, but he is the elect one. So it's corporate in your union with Christ, not foreknew who would be in Christ by faith.

I mean, I suppose they're picking at nits here, but anyway, the problem, of course, with this is that the direct object of predestination is not

Christ. The direct object of predestination is us to be in Christ.

That's corporate election collapses in Ephesians 1. It really does. We've gone over that a million times before already.

There is something else in that last two and a half minutes or so that I wanted to get to, but I think we have been in an exemplary fashion, fair and complete in our presentation of Leighton Flower's viewpoint on this.

And what have we seen? We have seen that it makes simple mincemeat. It changes its focus.

It changes the content of the verbs, and it introduces an innumerable number of conundrums that simply leave, that simply would have left

Paul's audience going, huh? Okay, what? Well, yes, it's great that nothing can separate us from the love of God.

God, because of some guys back then, and we're supposed to take an example or something, and you didn't mention who it was, and yeah.

It's, once again, the power of a biblical text will be discovered by allowing the entirety of the text to speak, and not by isolating any of its parts, so that, and also learn, when you isolate text, you can make it sound like you're reading something into it that makes sense.

It's when you make it then stand up in its context that the insertion you've made becomes very clear and very obvious.

That's something to be learned from that. So, there you go, folks. Um, you can't decalvinize

Romans 8, 28 through 30, not because Calvin pre -existed it, but because Calvin got it right.

He read it correctly. He read it in context. You can utterly disrupt it.

You can rob it of its fundamental coherence, and therefore of its power. But if you're going to allow it to speak for itself, it's going to say what it says, and what it says is straightforward and clear.