Romans 8:29-30 exposition

[anime4christ]

I did not bother to explain the verses you brought up because I have dealt with Calvinists for a while and as a general rule I have found when they bring up passages like the one in the OP it isn't because they have never heard a non-calvinist explanation for them, but rather they have already heard the non-calvinst position, rejected it, and are merely attempting to get in a plug for the Calvinist doctrine.

If you insist though I will give the explanation for it though doubtless you will reject the explanation as pretty much all Calvinists will since the OP appears to be essentially a typical plug for Calvinism rather than a serious question.

I'll be honest. It's kinda both. I want to get deeper into the truth myself and am willing to have my faith challenged in order to see for sure I am in the truth, but I also would want to spread the truth if I am in it and it challenges others.

"Romans 8:28-30 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

The focus of the passage is believers and specifically the long term goodness of God toward them that have believed. With that context and looking at the verses in the OP we see the first mentioned is Gods foreknowledge. God knows what will happen before it happens. He knows what choices you will make, what you will accept, what you will reject, everything. However the fact that God knows what you will do does not mean you have no choice in the matter, it merely means God is many steps ahead of you and is not held by the bounds of time and sees all choices that will be made as if they are already made. So we see that first comes foreknowledge, and AFTER foreknowledge comes predestination. But predestination to what? Not to salvation. Predestination to be conformed into the image of his son. Believers have been predestined to be conformed into the likeness of Christ. As it is written: "1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." The rest of the passage in question is simply back tracking and then continuing the progression of events.

The problem here once again is that God's foreknowledge in this verse is limited to a certain group of people and it is a relational knowing. He knew "those", not "what those would do". He knows what everyone will do, but He does not know everyone in the same way as individuals, which is seen from Matthew 7:24. The objective now is not to establish what He knew, but who are those whom He knew and what distinguishes them from the others. The only plausible explanation other than the one I posted in the OP is the explanation that the person wrote which I linked to in this thread. I still will go over it carefully and attempt to figure out which is the more likely explanation.

Other NT verses bear out that God has foreknowledge of who will be saved, but does not predestinate anyone to salvation. For example: "1 Peter 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."

This verse teaches that God has foreknowledge of who will listen to the call of the Spirit and be saved through the blood of Christ, but it does not teach that God predestined those people to make that choice, he just knew what their choice would be which is not the same thing at all. One option is freedom, the other option is a robot which hardly brings glory to God. It is the difference between children genuinely praising their parents out of love and respect and the parents making and playing recordings wherein they praise themselves. One is valuable and means something, the other is worthless and means nothing at all. At least nothing positive.

The verse does not say "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father on what they shall choose". The argument that follows is not one that is dealing with the text at all, but the implications as you see them. If God takes out my heart of stone which hates Him, and gives me a heart of flesh that will love Him, do I not love Him from the heart as a result and not as a robot?

That is pretty much what all Calvinists say when arguing for Calvanism against those who stand against it. It is always "misunderstood" unless you say you agree with it. Actually, I do not believe I have an "inaccurate perception of Calvinism". I have talked with many of them at length, read Calvinistic writings, and I usually have a decent grasp of what people are trying to say on other topics. If I wanted to and believed it I could just as easily argue from the Calvinist point of view. It is not a understanding issue, rather I find it to be a horrible unbiblical doctrine created by people who try so hard(and fail) to intellectually explain the finer details of how God works that they miss the fundamental truth of who God says he is.

I'm sorry, but being on the other side, I do have a better understanding of what I believe. An insider always knows more. Please read the sermon by Charles Spurgeon that John posted. It addresses the very issues you bring up, which are not textual but moral. I want textual issues here instead of moral issues. I found one argument that deals with it and I will prayerfully consider it, but I did not find it here. Here is the sermon by Spurgeon: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0207.htm

[Seth Doty]

I didn't say He predestined anyone to Hell.

If you don't think that then your out of step with a lot of other Calvinists on that issue.

Yes, it is a choice. But man cannot make it without God, because he hates God.

I could agree with that, but only with the stipulation that God has given to all men through grace the ability to turn to God if they choose. As it is written: "Romans 5:6-8 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

But He does not love all (Psalms 5:5-6, etc., etc.),

He loved the world enough to die for all mankind(I know, Calvinism believes in limited atonement, another heresy).

He does not intend to save all.

He knows all will not choose salvation, but they choose to reject him rather than him choosing to reject them. God as presented by Calvinism is so petty and humanlike. He says I love you, but not that other guy, I will redeem you for no reason and will let the other guy burn because I don't feel like helping him out. Even most people(on their better days anyway) wouldn't do something like that. When asked why the answer is because "he can". Calvinism essentially makes human life worthless when Christ valued it enough to die for it. As a child might build a sand castle at one moment and kick it down another so God(as portrayed by Calvinism anyway) lifts some people up through mercy and smashes others based on whim just because "he can". If that were so not only would he deny his word by being untrue to his revealed character it would also mean no one would be secure in salvation for who is to say such a being would not at some point grow "weary" of the "elect", destroy them and do something else? After all if the answer to other moral defects of God(again, as he is unjustly presented by Calvinism) is simply God can(and does) do anything moral or immoral simply because he feels like it, his own laws do not apply to him, and he is in charge then God would not be even slightly trustworthy. In reality he is trustworthy precisely because he never violates his own laws, is, good, faithful, righteous, holy merciful and on and on. In character God is far better than man could ever be, he is not a super powerful version of fallen man. When carried to its logical conclusion I feel Calvinism is far closer to blasphemy than taking a high view of God. It takes an exceeding low view of the character of God.

[anime4christ]

He knows all will not choose salvation, but they choose to reject him rather than him choosing to reject them. God as presented by Calvinism is so petty and humanlike. He says I love you, but not that other guy, I will redeem you for no reason and will let the other guy burn because I don't feel like helping him out. Even most people(on their better days anyway) wouldn't do something like that. When asked why the answer is because "he can". Calvinism essentially makes human life worthless when Christ valued it enough to die for it. As a child might build a sand castle at one moment and kick it down another so God(as portrayed by Calvinism anyway) lifts some people up through mercy and smashes others based on whim just because "he can". If that were so not only would he deny his word by being untrue to his revealed character it would also mean no one would be secure in salvation for who is to say such a being would not at some point grow "weary" of the "elect", destroy them and do something else? After all if the answer to other moral defects of God(again, as he is unjustly presented by Calvinism) is simply God can(and does) do anything moral or immoral simply because he feels like it, his own laws do not apply to him, and he is in charge then God would not be even slightly trustworthy. In reality he is trustworthy precisely because he never violates his own laws, is, good, faithful, righteous, holy merciful and on and on. In character God is far better than man could ever be, he is not a super powerful version of fallen man. When carried to its logical conclusion I feel Calvinism is far closer to blasphemy than taking a high view of God. It takes an exceeding low view of the character of God.

there is quite a difference between whim and eternal purpose. God has an eternal purpose in damning those He damns. Though that sounds very harsh, I cannot in good consciousness soften it as the Bible does not soften it either:

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? - Romans 9:22-24.

The thing is that God's primary purpose is His glory, not our salvation. Though it is a glorious thing that He does save us, this puts election in a whole different perspective.

I know someone may attempt to say that those verses say something else, but just take them in their pure raw form and really see what they say.

[Crushmaster]

If you don't think that then your out of step with a lot of other Calvinists on that issue.

I actually don't know how many Calvinists believe in double predestination.

I kind of see it as irrelevant. We're all lost "by default", as it were, so we're already on our way to damnation. Don't see why it needs to be "predestined."

I could agree with that, but only with the stipulation that God has given to all men through grace the ability to turn to God if they choose. As it is written: "Romans 5:6-8 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

That is unprovable, I'm afraid.

Who is "we"? Who is "us"? Christians! That's who the book was being written to.

He loved the world enough to die for all mankind(I know, Calvinism believes in limited atonement, another heresy).

Well, according to Psalms 5:5 - "The boastful shall not stand in Your Sight; You hate all workers of iniquity."

'World' doesn't have to mean 'all people.' For example, the Pharisees say of Christ, "All the world has gone after Him!" Did every single person follow Him? No! But all types of people did.

He knows all will not choose salvation, but they choose to reject him rather than him choosing to reject them. God as presented by Calvinism is so petty and humanlike. He says I love you, but not that other guy, I will redeem you for no reason and will let the other guy burn because I don't feel like helping him out.

Whether you're a Calvinist or not, the Bible is clear God does not love all. Many more verses besides just Psalms 5:5 can be quoted to support that.

NONE of us deserve to be saved. That's the point. "Well, why didn't He elect everyone?" "Why did He?"

Even most people(on their better days anyway) wouldn't do something like that. When asked why the answer is because "he can". Calvinism essentially makes human life worthless when Christ valued it enough to die for it.

Well, Calvinism doesn't teach that Christ died for everyone, so...

As a child might build a sand castle at one moment and kick it down another so God(as portrayed by Calvinism anyway) lifts some people up through mercy and smashes others based on whim just because "he can".

He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and compassion on whom He will have compassion.

You need to read Romans 9.

If that were so not only would he deny his word by being untrue to his revealed character it would also mean no one would be secure in salvation for who is to say such a being would not at some point grow "weary" of the "elect", destroy them and do something else? After all if the answer to other moral defects of God(again, as he is unjustly presented by Calvinism) is simply God can(and does) do anything moral or immoral simply because he feels like it, his own laws do not apply to him, and he is in charge then God would not be even slightly trustworthy. In reality he is trustworthy precisely because he never violates his own laws, is, good, faithful, righteous, holy merciful and on and on. In character God is far better than man could ever be, he is not a super powerful version of fallen man. When carried to its logical conclusion I feel Calvinism is far closer to blasphemy than taking a high view of God. It takes an exceeding low view of the character of God.

You're assuming what Calvinism is unjust. Thus, your accusations are baseless.

Some Calvinists hold insane beliefs (e.g., "God made Adam and Eve sin"), but I don't. Calvinism is TULIP, which is Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.

I've enjoyed the discussion; it has been good exercise. Look forward to its continuation.
God bless,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14; Romans 5:8.

[Covenanter]

Do I write with invisible ink? Do those who oppose "Calvinism" believe in the election of Israel?

That language is a vile slander on Bible-believing Gospel-preaching Christians. All you are doing is reviling your own wilful misunderstanding of first Scripture, then the doctrine nicknamed "Calvinism."

Do you doubt the unconditional election of Abraham's descendants? Or the election of Jacob & rejection of Esau?

Deu 7:6 ¶ For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deu 14:2 For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that [are] upon the earth.

Neh 9:7 Thou [art] the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; .....

Mal 1:2 ¶ I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? [Was] not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, ...

Rom 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 ¶ What shall we say then? [is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

The "anti-calvinist" answer to Paul's "What shall we say then? [is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid" is Seth-Doty's "God is a liar ... closer to a thug and a bully than the righteous judge scripture declares him to be and there would be nothing to morally recommend him over the devil."

I will address the OP in a future post.

[Wilchbla]

Predestination doesn't kick in until AFTER a man receives Christ of his own freewill. What God promised was that everyone who would except Christ off their own freewill (and everyone has a chance to do it) would be predestined to be as Christ. The fact that he foreknew who would or wouldn't doesn't change a thing.

It's not, "Let me now predestined those few that I know will except my Son before they are even born so they will get saved no matter what."

What it is is, "Let me now set up this promise of predestination so that those who except my Son of their own freewill after they are born can enter into that promise of predestination i made before I created the world."

[John81]

"Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."

The scriptures are spiritually discerned. That is doubtless why the vast majority of the time nothing of much substance is gained by arguing. Both sides remain convinced they are right since a spiritual change must occur in order to see much of the time. For that very reason I have strongly considered giving up arguing online with people I do not know over bible doctrine as I am skeptical that it does any good and may even do harm by hardening them into the wrong positions. On the other hand I am not sure it is right to leave error undisputed either lest it lead others into error. Still haven't completely made up my mind about the right balance.

I've wrestled with that myself. I've primarily settled on a simple "test" to determine how I deal with this. If the "dispute" is on a forum, or other place, where those involved there are primarily there for the sake of argument, then there is little to be gained from engaging. If the "dispute" is on a more open forum, especially one where lurkers may be about, then engaging may be worthwhile. Typically in such cases the refuting of error and presenting of truth is aimed at the lurkers more than at the one being directly engaged because most often they are set upon their view and not open to the possibility they may learn something.

[John81]

I'm sorry, but being on the other side, I do have a better understanding of what I believe. An insider always knows more. Please read the sermon by Charles Spurgeon that John posted. It addresses the very issues you bring up, which are not textual but moral. I want textual issues here instead of moral issues. I found one argument that deals with it and I will prayerfully consider it, but I did not find it here. Here is the sermon by Spurgeon: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0207.htm

I do wish others would read that sermon and comment. When I first read that sermon I found it to be thought provoking.

[MadeFree92]

@S-D

If you don't think that then your out of step with a lot of other Calvinists on that issue.


As for double predesintation, Crush is not disagreeing with all other Calvinists, if you study the systems there is a difference in the lapsarian systems, some don't believe in double predestination and others do. Here is a summary of the systems,

"Those are the two major Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election."

Supralapsarianism

1. Elect some, reprobate rest.
2. Create.
3. Permit Fall.
4. Provide Salvation for Elect.
5. Call Elect to Salvation.

Infralapsarianism
1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Elect Some, Pass over rest,
4. Provide Salvation for the Elect
5. Call Elect to Salvation

Like, I assume, Crushmaster believes, I do not believe in double predestination. I am infralapsarian.

Edited June 20, 2011 by MadeFree92

[MadeFree92]

If you don't think that then your out of step with a lot of other Calvinists on that issue.



I could agree with that, but only with the stipulation that God has given to all men through grace the ability to turn to God if they choose. As it is written: "Romans 5:6-8 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."



He loved the world enough to die for all mankind(I know, Calvinism believes in limited atonement, another heresy).



He knows all will not choose salvation, but they choose to reject him rather than him choosing to reject them. God as presented by Calvinism is so petty and humanlike. He says I love you, but not that other guy, I will redeem you for no reason and will let the other guy burn because I don't feel like helping him out. Even most people(on their better days anyway) wouldn't do something like that. When asked why the answer is because "he can". Calvinism essentially makes human life worthless when Christ valued it enough to die for it. As a child might build a sand castle at one moment and kick it down another so God(as portrayed by Calvinism anyway) lifts some people up through mercy and smashes others based on whim just because "he can". If that were so not only would he deny his word by being untrue to his revealed character it would also mean no one would be secure in salvation for who is to say such a being would not at some point grow "weary" of the "elect", destroy them and do something else? After all if the answer to other moral defects of God(again, as he is unjustly presented by Calvinism) is simply God can(and does) do anything moral or immoral simply because he feels like it, his own laws do not apply to him, and he is in charge then God would not be even slightly trustworthy. In reality he is trustworthy precisely because he never violates his own laws, is, good, faithful, righteous, holy merciful and on and on. In character God is far better than man could ever be, he is not a super powerful version of fallen man. When carried to its logical conclusion I feel Calvinism is far closer to blasphemy than taking a high view of God. It takes an exceeding low view of the character of God.

As for kicking down sandcastles the child built, that is an inadequate illustration. God did not make man ruined, man did. Man has sinned, man hates God, man is corrupt because they have corrupted themselves, God did not make them to be destroyed they have made themselves fit for destruction through sin and corruption. God does not destroy people on a whim, it is because they deserve it, the same thing for the elect, they deserve damnation, but they have a substitute, that's the only reason they are spared. If God punishes a lawbreaker He is just, if He pardons some for the reason of the death of One Who died on their behalf He is just because atonement has been made. This does not make God a monster, man is the monster here, not God. The question we must ask is not "why doesn't God make it so everyone can be saved?" The question is: "Why did God make it so ANYONE could be saved?"

They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. -Psalm 14:3

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. - Ecclesiastes 7:29

Edited June 20, 2011 by MadeFree92

[Crushmaster]

Predestination doesn't kick in until AFTER a man receives Christ of his own freewill. What God promised was that everyone who would except Christ off their own freewill (and everyone has a chance to do it) would be predestined to be as Christ. The fact that he foreknew who would or wouldn't doesn't change a thing.

It's not, "Let me now predestined those few that I know will except my Son before they are even born so they will get saved no matter what."

What it is is, "Let me now set up this promise of predestination so that those who except my Son of their own freewill after they are born can enter into that promise of predestination i made before I created the world."

Predestined=Predetermined Destiny.

That doesn't make any sense. At all. Man HATES God, He would never choose God, and no man - not even one - seeks after God. And I have proven that those described in John 6:44 are believers, and can only be believers.

That's the whole point, sir - if God did not elect some, all of us would go off into just damnation because we love darkness rather than light.
God bless,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14; Romans 5:8.

[anime4christ]

Predestination doesn't kick in until AFTER a man receives Christ of his own freewill. What God promised was that everyone who would except Christ off their own freewill (and everyone has a chance to do it) would be predestined to be as Christ. The fact that he foreknew who would or wouldn't doesn't change a thing.

It's not, "Let me now predestined those few that I know will except my Son before they are even born so they will get saved no matter what."

What it is is, "Let me now set up this promise of predestination so that those who except my Son of their own freewill after they are born can enter into that promise of predestination i made before I created the world."

Is that 2 Opinions 5:13? Where does the Bible say that?

@S-D

If you don't think that then your out of step with a lot of other Calvinists on that issue.


As for double predesintation, Crush is not disagreeing with all other Calvinists, if you study the systems there is a difference in the lapsarian systems, some don't believe in double predestination and others do. Here is a summary of the systems,

"Those are the two major Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election."

Supralapsarianism

1. Elect some, reprobate rest.
2. Create.
3. Permit Fall.
4. Provide Salvation for Elect.
5. Call Elect to Salvation.

Infralapsarianism
1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Elect Some, Pass over rest,
4. Provide Salvation for the Elect
5. Call Elect to Salvation

Like, I assume, Crushmaster believes, I do not believe in double predestination. I am infralapsarian.

Well, there is a bit of variation in the lapsarian debate. Technically, infralapsarians do believe in double predestination, but that it is passive rather than active. On the other hand, I would be closer to supralapsarian, but the above description of the supralapsarian scheme doesn't really fit what I believe. I believe the double predestination is active, but it is still man who corrupts himself, and God isn't just looking for an excuse to sent them to Hell. Like Piper, I believe in double predestination, but also in the well-meant offer and God's long-suffering and compassion towards the reprobate. Then again, I don't get into the lapsarian debate as it is, because I don't think you can put an order to eternal decrees and build your whole view on an order that doesn't exist.

[MadeFree92]

Is that 2 Opinions 5:13? Where does the Bible say that?



Well, there is a bit of variation in the lapsarian debate. Technically, infralapsarians do believe in double predestination, but that it is passive rather than active. On the other hand, I would be closer to supralapsarian, but the above description of the supralapsarian scheme doesn't really fit what I believe. I believe the double predestination is active, but it is still man who corrupts himself, and God isn't just looking for an excuse to sent them to Hell. Like Piper, I believe in double predestination, but also in the well-meant offer and God's long-suffering and compassion towards the reprobate. Then again, I don't get into the lapsarian debate as it is, because I don't think you can put an order to eternal decrees and build your whole view on an order that doesn't exist.

I understand what you're saying, however I did not gather double predestination from the summaries of infralapsarianism that I've seen. I'll have to look into that, thanks for pointing it out. The summaries quoted are from Phil Johnson's analysis of the systems. I haven't really looked into Piper's view on the matter either. I posted this due to what I thought was misunderstood.

Also:

the above description of the supralapsarian scheme doesn't really fit what I believe.

I don't think systems that other people formulate will fit what anyone believes. :biggrin: Edited June 20, 2011 by MadeFree92

[Seth Doty]

there is quite a difference between whim and eternal purpose. God has an eternal purpose in damning those He damns. Though that sounds very harsh, I cannot in good consciousness soften it as the Bible does not soften it either:

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? - Romans 9:22-24.

The thing is that God's primary purpose is His glory, not our salvation. Though it is a glorious thing that He does save us, this puts election in a whole different perspective.

I know someone may attempt to say that those verses say something else, but just take them in their pure raw form and really see what they say.

God is not self centered and it is a fundamental error in Calvinism to believe that he is. The devil(and often fallen man) is self centered. There was no reason for God to offer man a way of salvation but for the fact that God is good and not self centered. Is God glorified by mans salvation? Yes, but God is glorified the same regardless because of who he is in and of himself and he does not "need" man in order to be glorified. Remember what Christ said: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." and again: "I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out." Self centeredness or a "desire for his own glorification" would not lead a Holy God who knew no sin and was already infinitely glorious to become sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. We didn't have anything to offer God, and he didn't give to mankind the way of salvation for his own benefit in some twisted roundabout way. We are to glorify God because it is good for US to do so. It is a show of gratitude for what he has done for us. It is recognizing him and praising him in some small way for who he is and doing that brings us closer to him which is the best place for US to be. As far as the value of our praise and our glorifying of God or the glory he gets through us its only value is due to the value God places upon it not due to some intrinsic value of its own. When we glorify God it is the equivalent of a child giving his parent some money out of the allowance that same parent gave him in the first place. The parent might appreciate the heart behind it, but aside from the pleasure the parent gets from the good intentions and love the child has toward the parent the parent is in no way enriched. The money was his to begin with. To hear Calvinism presented one would think God was a needy God who was somehow farming mankind to fulfill some "need" of his for glory. As if what he had was somehow lacking and imperfect and he was "gaining" glory as he went along. Rather than God increasing in and gaining glory because of what he does with man it is as Christ said: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." That is a current fact, a past fact, and a future fact. To argue that Gods purpose is "his glory" makes about as much sense as saying his purpose is his power or any other aspect of his character. It is only one aspect of his character, not the whole, and not a purpose per se, but merely who he is. A perfect , eternal, self existing being who has need of nothing cannot logically have purposes for himself but only purposes for others who are less than himself. The purpose of something implies depending on how it is used either the reason something exists in the first place(not applicable to God), goals for ones own self, which is not possible for a God that is already the Alpha and Omega, or goals for others, which is the only possible way for God to logically have any sort of purpose at all. Beyond his goals for others God does not have or need a purpose as a man would. He is simply the great I AM THAT I AM, the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY which is, and which was, and which is to come. amen.

[anime4christ]

Huh? You lost me bro.. A lot of false assumptions, jumpy logic, self-contradiction, and I didn't get your point. So, can we get back to the text?

As for the Arminian commentary I posted earlier, I'll have to say I'm not as good at Greek as the fellow who wrote that, and his explanation is plausible, but it has two issues:

1) His interpretation of the Greek word "foreknow" is at odds with the interpretation generally accepted by scholars, including the translators of the KJB, which makes it at odds with the KJB.

2) Even if his interpretation is true, it misses a point in Romans 8:28, which describes the foreknown:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.

These "foreknown" love God, but are not called because of their love towards Him, but are called according to His purpose. God's purpose is eternal and precedes any love saints could have for Him. Therefore, the passage still does not support the Arminian position even if that person's interpretation is correct. It does however leave the question open as to what is God's purpose, but we won't discuss that now.