1. In KJVese, what is the difference between "est" and "eth"?

2. How do you interpret Rom. 9...the classical "Calvinist Golden Chain"

Note: other non-Calvinists may weigh in, HOWEVER, Not to be divisive, but Calvinists need not respond...we all know what you think of this chapter...no need to beat it to death here. I in no way wish this to be a Calvinist debate, just asking for one person's view on a passage.

_________________
Denver McDaniel

_________________
Josh Parsley

1. 'est' is the verb ending for the 2nd Pers Sing ie thou, thee, thy, thine.
'eth' is the present tense of a verb. It is often said to be closer to our 'present continuous' tense. So, "ask and it shall be given you' is better understood as 'go on asking and it shall be given you... go on seeking, go on knocking.

If the thought arises why does it say 'Knock' and not 'knockest' or 'knocketh' it is because it is the imperative (command) form of the verb.

2. This will require a separate post, I think.

_________________
Ron Bailey

[color=0033FF] Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Romans 8:26-30 NKJV)[/color]

I have purposely quoted a longer portion to try to identify the context of the passage. Much of Romans 8 is about the absolute necessity of the Spirit, in the present and in the future. It will be the Spirit who will give life to our mortal bodies; Rom 8:11. If a man does not have the Spirit he has not been identified as belonging to Christ; Rom 8:9. This chapter has as its topic the work of the Spirit from beginning to end in the life of those who have the Spirit.

I say this because of our constant temptation to treat the Bible as though it were a collection of texts for preachers or theologians. The underlying theme of Romans is that God’s salvation is by grace and therefor must always be through faith. Only faith can preserve grace as grace otherwise we slide into works; Rom 4:16. So the whole pattern, thus far into Romans, has been the necessity of genuine faith and God’s response to that is a Spirit endued salvation.

There is a struggle to translate 8:28 which is seen in the various attempts which sometimes regard ‘called’ as a verb sometimes as a noun. The KJV has gone for a noun but has put a stray definite article at the beginning which makes it look as if ‘the called’ are a definite class of people. The definite article should be omitted, but if we omit it ‘called’ begins to look like a verb which it is not. Here is how I would cope with it…
[color=0033FF]…those who are called ones with a purpose in view…[/color]

They are identified as people and I don’t think this implies a fixed number who have been called with a specific purpose in view. Many people reading this assume that the specific purpose is salvation but the next verse makes it clear that ‘salvation’ in not in Paul’s mind. The purpose in mind is ‘conformity to Christ’. However we understand the process the object is to have a whole family of people like Christ; they will be conformed to Christ’s image and will be ‘brothers’ of which he is the firstborn. This itself is breathtaking and is often lost in the rush to get to the process of the next verses. This puts me in the company of bible students like Campbell Morgan and A W Tozer who believe that predestination has more to do with role than salvation and that the calling in question here is likeness to Christ. To me, Israel’s election was to service rather than salvation.

The first stage of the process, as I read it in Rom 8:29 is ‘foreknowledge’. I think a Calvinist (I’m sure they will tell me. ;-)) interprets the ‘also predestinated’ to precede the foreknowing. I can see why they would say this but don’t believe it is the natural interpretation of the verse. The word ‘foreknowing’ is linked to our English word, often used by the medics, prognosis. No human being really has the right to use the word ‘prognosis’; the medics really use it to mean an ‘estimate’ which is not what the original meant at all. (Incidentally, with relation to the open theism theme, there are some on this forum who don’t seem to think God has the right to use it either!)

The obvious question is ‘what did God foreknow’ that begins this process? I suppose the non-Calvinst would reply ‘God foreknows man’s response’. I would suggest, maintaining the link with Rom 8:28, that it might include the foreknowing of those who will love God. If my understanding of love is right is can never be predetermined by another party. For me that would negate my understanding of love as a free choice. These who are foreknown by God as ‘God lovers’ are predestined, not primarily in this passage to salvation, but to conformity to the image of Christ. God will see them through to the culmination of his purpose for man which is to have a creature ‘in the image and likeness of God’; Gen 1:26. God has never changed his mind on this and neither Satan nor sin can change his mind; He will have a family of people who are like himself.

There may well be other ingredient to ‘what God foreknew’ but it does seem very basic to me that God’s predestinating work is based on the foundation of his ‘foreknowledge’ so I cannot subscribe to ‘unconditional election’. The conditions may be debatable but that there is some condition seems to me to be the most obvious meaning of this passage.

We then move into the process again. Predestination to conformity to Christ is followed by God’s calling those whom he has foreknown. However we know from elsewhere that in some sense at least not all the called are chosen.

[color=0033FF]“For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14 NKJV)[/color]

Here again ‘called’ is the noun and so is ‘chosen’, hence “many are called ones but few are chosen ones”. ‘chosen’ here is eklektos, elect. “many are called ones but few are elect ones”. How are we to understand this Matthew passage? On face value it seems to be saying very plainly that many ‘called ones’ never become ‘elect ones’.

Back in Romans 8:30 the process moves on to ‘justification’. Is it justification which transforms a ‘called one’ into an ‘elect one’? Justification is God’s response to faith. Without faith it not possible to please God. Is it faith which transforms a called one into an elect one? You will see that I cannot subscribe to monergism either. ;-) I am definitely for synergism. BTW the word synergism is in the Greek in this passage…

[color=0033FF]And we know that all things [u]work together[/u] for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28 NKJV)[/color]

The Greek word ‘work together’ is ‘synergeO’. The NASB is more accurate here in making it very plain who does the ‘synergising’;

[color=0033FF]And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose. Rom 8:28 New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation[/color]

However, God takes [u]things[/u] and syngergises them for the good of conforming men and women to the image of His Son. And one of the ‘things’ he takes may be the ‘faith that works through love’.

That leaves ‘glorification’. Again we tend to read this as if glorification were the future that is yet to be, but the tense is the same Aorist tense that has been used throughout this passage. foreknew, predestined, called, justified and glorified are all the same Aorist tense. Of course ultimate conformity to Christ is yet to be but even now he has given us his glory and Hebrews puts even ‘glorification’ in the current life.

[color=0033FF]For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. (Hebrews 2:10 NKJV)[/color]

Technically this could read “having brought many sons to glory”.

Anyway, that’s enough for one post!!

_________________
Ron Bailey

Brother Ron,

I intend to respect the admonition not to weigh in on the issue as originally posted. You do make a statement in your post though that I wanted to follow up on with a question. You said that love must be from a free choice. I have heard that comment many times and don't understand the source of it. Is that definition something we innately understand or is there other reference? Second, in your view, does God love from choice? If God's purpose is to conform us to the image of His Son, wouldn't our love emanate from the same source and have the same nature as His own? Obviously, not fully so yet.

_________________
Diane

_________________
Ron Bailey

Ron, do you see this view of "election to service" to continue into Romans 9, or does Paul change direction here? And how does the clear discourse on nations at the beginning of this chapter pertain to a more "individualistic" approach he apparently takes later in chapter 9?

_________________
Denver McDaniel

_________________
Ron Bailey

Interesting thread. Needed bumped.

_________________
Jeff Mollman