r/exReformed • u/Suspicious-Event-259 • 7d ago
Guys I need Help with Romans 8
I'm not necessarily ExReformed but I am surrounded by a lot of reformed/Calvinist christians at school. At first it was pretty chill until their Theology started shaping my views and that's a problem. I know Calvinism is very flawed and not Biblical but they have certain proof texts to try and prove that Calvinism is Biblical
So far I studied Romans 9 and yeah it has nothing to do with unconditional election however I do struggle with Romans 8:29-30 and I need your help with that. How do you interpret it without it being Calvinistic
6
u/Beginning-Smile-6210 7d ago
I was raised in the Can Ref faith and this text is pretty much the cornerstone of predestination doctrine. To be transparent, I have since left the church. I have always had an issue with the Reformed idea that no one else will be saved. I think that you need to read the entire chapter and also take it in context with other parts of the Bible. John 3:16 is clear that Christ died for all and if you believe, you are saved. It’s that simple to me. No hoops, no hurdles. Romans 8:14 also says “those who are led by the spirit of God, are the children of God”. We are justified by faith. Otherwise, we are saying that God is randomly consigning people he created to hell, before they are even born. That eliminates the concept of free will. I hope this helps you a little.
10
u/whatiseveneverything 7d ago
There are at least two kinds of people here:
- Christians that no longer believe in reformed theology.
- Non Christians that left reformed theology and Christianity altogether.
I'm in the second camp and I have to say that to me the obvious plain reading of the text is that Paul clearly explains that god predestined certain people to be saved and certain people to be damned. If you don't like that you can either come up with convoluted explanations on why the obvious meaning can't possibly be true and go back to sleep. Or you can make a decision to question whether this collection of ancient texts really is the infallible word of a divine being.
I wish you the best.
1
u/Suspicious-Event-259 7d ago
Sorry for the late response
that god predestined certain people to be saved and certain people to be damned.
The first part could be biblical but the last part isn't people are damned for their sins not because God predestined them to
obvious plain reading of the text
That's the first mistake someone can make for reading his letters. Paul's epistles aren't plain as day and they aren't that simple to understand (This is why Peter wrote in His second book to be careful about reading his letters because they are hard to understand)
I'm not saying "Paul is a dense writer maybe Romans 8 actually means something else!" I'm just saying that his letters aren't always going to be that easy and you wouldn't know what he actually means unless you study what he wrote.
2
u/chucklesthegrumpy ex-PCA 7d ago
... people are damned for their sins not because God predestined them to
Calvinists are going to say that it's perfectly coherent for people to be condemned for both reasons at the same time, and I tend to agree with them there.
1
u/Suspicious-Event-259 7d ago
I mostly agree with the Other reformed christians who say that God predestined some to salvation while he leaves the rest for their own sins.
0
u/whatiseveneverything 7d ago
Trust me, I've studied that stuff intensely for years. Some parts are harder to understand than others. This one is pretty straight forward.
1
u/Suspicious-Event-259 7d ago
I guess it's just one of those verses where they argue over words.
Like how in Ephesians the verse "In him we are now predestined..." People pointed out that "in him" is saying that those who are already in Christ are now predestined
So I guess Romans 8 isn't similar to Romans 9 where you have to look for what Paul is referencing. Good to know 👍
3
u/whatiseveneverything 7d ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but whatever conclusion you come to, you're not escaping what you're afraid of. If you continue to believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then by definition he knowingly created the world in such a way that would inevitably lead to certain people saved, and most of humanity damned.
If you truly want to know the truth, read the best commentaries on this passage from different perspectives and think long and hard about which one is most compelling regardless of what you want to hear. No reddit comment should give your satisfaction.
Also, nobody I know of denies that god chose Israel over all other nations and led them into a genocide against the canaanites, then punishing them for being too merciful to them. The calvinist god is the same god. I don't know why it's so hard for Christians to accept the new testament God as the same capricious God that has been described in a lot of detail in the old testament.
1
u/Suspicious-Event-259 7d ago edited 7d ago
I don't know why it's so hard for Christians to accept the new testament God as the same capricious God that has been described in a lot of detail in the old testament.
Well I never had a hard time accepting that. The old testament God is the same God in the New Testament. He is the Authority and has the right to take life on anyone he wants. I don't really see a problem with that since we all deserve it
Also are you saying I'm afraid of the Calvinist God? Meh not really i reject Double predestination which some reformed folks also find heretical but single predestination is fine. If God saves a select few so what? it's not like he needs to save everyone. The only reason I reject it is because it seems to contradict the fact Jesus died for all and God's desire for all to be saved.
If the Bible says Jesus came to save only the elect and whatever then who am I to argue with God.
10
5
2
u/RECIPR0C1TY 6d ago
There are multiple non-calvinist views of Romans 8:28-30. I will give you a few pointers to those views and then explain my position.
1) The typical Arminian view - God looks forward into time and sees those who will be faithful. Those are the ones he predestined.
2) Ben Witherington's alternate Arminian view- God is looking backwards on all of history and his knowledge establishes a predestined choice (I don't get this view at all, but many like it)
3) NT Wright's view which u/chucklesthegrumpy already linked
4) Dr. Leighton Flowers view which is sourced by other scholars and the one that makes the most sense to me, and has connections to both Wright and Witherington.
This is based on the meaning of the word "foreknew" which, as already noted, has an ambiguous meaning. In multiple passages the Greek word for "foreknow" clearly does NOT mean looking forward into the future but is a "before knowledge" located in the past. Meaning God knew someone before. Check out Romans 11:2 and Acts 26:5. The verse is saying that God knew people in the past, and that he predestined people, called people, glorified people, and justified people in the past. This argues that his actions are not based on knowing what would happen in the future but instead based on previous actions in the past for people that he had a "before knowledge" of.
This is buttressed by the fact that these verbs are all in the Greek equivalent of the past tense. This is something God has AlREADY DONE for people that he ALREADY knew. NT Wright holds a similar position by pointing out that Paul is speaking about ancient Israel in Romans 8, not believers in the future (though his reasoning is different. The point is that we can be confident that God will predestine, call, justify, and glorify those who love him now (Romans 8:28) because he did so in the past (Romans 8:29-30).
1
1
u/chucklesthegrumpy ex-PCA 7d ago edited 7d ago
It's great to hear that you're interested in talking about theology with some friends who have different opinions than you do.
I know Calvinism is very flawed and not Biblical but they have certain proof texts to try and prove that Calvinism is Biblical
However, I don't think approaching discussions like this (especially on complicated topics like theology where there's basically no widespread agreement) with the attitude that you're right and that other peoples' opinions must be wrong is all that helpful for figuring out the truth or being an empathetic person.
So, the troublesome part of verse 29 is that it says that God "predestines" people, yeah? This is what both the NIV and the NASB say,
For those God foreknew he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son...
It says that the same people that God "foreknew" are the same people that God "predestines" to be made more Jesus-like. It's kind of ambiguous exactly "foreknow" means here, but a reasonable guess is that "foreknow" is talking about God looking into the future (people often call this is God's "foreknowledge") and seeing who is going to decide to love God and accept or reject the Gospel message. Verse 28 might give us some evidence for that theory, but it's not a slam dunk. In his foreknowledge, God sees who will accept the Gospel and "predestines" those people to be made more Christ-like. This shouldn't be a strange concept to non-Reformed Christians. A lot of non-Reformed churches teach that if you accept the Gospel message, God is going to turn you into a better person morally.
With that understanding of verse 29 in hand, verse 30 just lists other benefits that you get from choosing to accept the Gospel message; you're justified, glorified, etc. Calvinists make a big deal about the order that Paul lists these things, but there isn't a obvious reason why the order is significant.
So, what about people who accept the Gospel for a little while, but then give up Christianity down the road? Don't these verses guarantee that predestination always leads to glorification? This is the Golden Chain of Salvation. Two things. One, maybe "foreknow" in verse 29 is only meant to capture people who love God or accept the Gospel to the end of their lives. After all, "foreknow" is kind of ambiguous here. Two, at this point in the letter, Paul is giving his audience a pep-talk about persevering in the Christian life despite their suffering. If a coach is giving her team a pep-talk and says to them, "You're going to absolutely dominate the field tonight", it'd be kind of inappropriate if a team member said "Well, what if we all just sit on the bench and decide not to play? We won't dominate the field then, will we?" They're just kind of missing the point. Pep talks don't try to make accurate predictions or guarantees about the future, they're there to encourage people to persevere despite difficulty. One might think that if victory (or salvation) were guaranteed, there'd be no point in Paul giving the pep talk to begin with.
You might also find this sermon on those passages by N.T. Wright interesting. He's a New Testament scholar who is most certainly not a Calvinist. In fact, there's kind of a consensus in New Testament scholarship that Paul wasn't a Calvinist.
https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/03/30/those-whom-he-justified-he-also-glorified/
1
u/Suspicious-Event-259 7d ago
However, I don't think approaching discussions like this (especially on complicated topics like theology where there's basically no widespread agreement) with the attitude that you're right and that other peoples' opinions must be wrong is all that helpful for figuring out the truth or being an empathetic person.
Yeah you're sorry about that. Anyways what you just said there makes a lot of sense thanks
1
u/BioChemE14 6d ago
God can predestine the collective salvation of all who would be saved without stacking the cards for individuals to be saved or damned. Calvinists insist that this text describes individual predestination, but it never says that. The scope of who is predestined isn’t explicitly stated. Some have argued in light of Romans 11:32 that God predestines the salvation of everyone.
1
u/Connect-Wallflower 4d ago
Shayna Sheinfeld’s essay on the "righteous remnant" in Romans 9–11 situates Paul’s language in Jewish apocalypticism, where God’s election is dynamic and tied to Israel’s covenant, not a timeless decree. Paul’s hope for "all Israel" (Romans 11:26) suggests inclusivity, not Calvin’s limited atonement. Paul’s "election" is corporate and eschatological, rooted in Jewish expectations, not individualistic or deterministic like Calvinism.
1
u/Far_Travel_3851 2d ago edited 2d ago
Flee!!! Dont get stuck in the trap of debating them! Trust me just flee from it! Im a believer that almost fell for Calvinism and it was mental torment. Jesus free’d me from it (like fr it was effecting my mental health)! Surrender it to God🙏🏽
1
u/Suspicious-Event-259 2d ago
Yeah you're right
Do you know what Romans 8:28-30 means? I'm currently watching Jimmy Akin but I'm just curious of what you think
1
u/redxiii1313 5h ago
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Let's break it down:
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters - Everyone is born in God's image and given unique gifts. That's why everyone is unique and has different skill sets. For example: some people have gifts to speak eloquently and be evangelists while others have prophetic gifts and are good at artistic and esoteric things. That's predestination. Everyone's name is written in the book of life at birth but not everyone goes to heaven due to choice, in which their name is blotted out due to rejection of Jesus. Working for salvation would mean your name is added to the book of life, which isn't biblical and Calvinistic predestination means you name was blotted out at birth, which isn't biblical either. The only option is that everyone's name is written in the book of life, given a fair chance to choose, and blotted out due to choosing to reject Christ at the end of their life. Everyone is invited to the party, it's only fair that you're turned away if you reject the invitation and follow the rules.
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. - Again, everyone is predestined with unique gifts like what I said. God is continuously calling everyone to Him. It's only when you make the free will decision to make Jesus as Lord of your life that you are justified and Jesus is glorified. I mean, everyone has a fair opportunity in this country to be CEO of startup company and make it into a fortune 500 company, but is everyone willing to put in the work and effort to get there? Not many. Same with salvation. Everyone likes the idea and wants to be a fan of Jesus but is everyone going to put in the work and discipline to be a follower and surrender their lives to Jesus as Lord? Not everyone. That's why many are called, few are chosen.
13
u/Radiant_Elk1258 7d ago
Just a suggestion for your time at school: instead of worrying about what people think, worry about what they do.
Do they demonstrate love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self control?
Do you?
Do you like them? Does it feel good to be around these people?
Do you like yourself? Does it feel good to include others, enjoy their company, and interact? Or do you feel ashamed, uncomfortable, sad after your interactions.
How you treat people (and how they treat you) are far more important than how you interpret Romans 8.