On his website, Arminian Perspectives, Ben Henshaw has a questions page at which he answers questions about Arminianism and Calvinism that visitors to his site pose in the comment section of the page. Here is a discussion that occurred on the page concerning the nature of foreknowledge and Rom 8:29 (the discussion has been edited/altered to streamline it [e.g., eliminating a discussion participant and including references from him in ben’s comments as if Ben suggested them]):
Sally: I understand foreknowledge a little differently from the way it is seems to have been presented in this discussion. The idea that God saves us based on the fact that “foreknew” that we would make a choice to believe in Christ does not fit with Romans 8:30 – “And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified”. This verse says that all whom God calls He also justifies. Not all are called, or else all would be justified. (All are called in one sense – everyone within earshot of the preaching of the gospel are being called to repentance and faith). But the call referred to in verse 30 is only given to those who have been predestined to be conformed to the image of His son (“those whom he predestined, these he also called, and those whom he called, these he also justified) All the called are justified, not some. Since Romans 5:1 tells us that justification is by faith, then the call must cause the faith. The call referred to in Romans 8:30 must be God sovereignly bringing people to faith. The idea of foreknowledge is more than knowing in advance that a certain event will occur / a certain choice will be made. It usually has the connotation of a personal kind of knowing.
Ben: I understand foreknowledge a little differently from the way it is seems to have been presented in this discussion.
Does that mean you do not hold that God exhaustive foreknowledge? That is the main way it has been presented in this discussion.
You mention “foreknew” in a more personal sense. Actually foreknew almost always has reference to simple prescience in Scripture, but even simple prescience does not exclude any personal aspect, for God’s prescience encompasses all things. However, I do think Paul is speaking in a more personal sense here, but he is also speaking corporately. He is speaking of the corporate elect body, and “called” is most likely being used in the naming sense as a designation of those who are His (elect people, i.e., all believers). Other examples of this naming sense of “called” are found in Rom. 9:7, 8, 25, 26. Here are some good articles with regards to this alternative interpretation of Rom. 8:28-30:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
See the corporate conception of foreknowledge described at the following page after the material on election: http://evangelicalarminians.org/a-concise-summary-of-the-corporate-view-of-election-and-predestination/.
Also, here is a great interpretation from a corporate perspective on the passage you mentioned: http://evangelicalarminians.org/Perseverance-Oropeza-on-Romans-8.28-39
And here is another good post on the passage: http://evangelicalarminians.org/some-good-comments-from-robert-shank-on-rom-828-29/.
There are plenty of other alternative interpretations of this passage as well that do not lead to the conclusions you have drawn.
Leon: Sally, You have brought up an interesting point about foreknowledge. Today Arminians do not all agree as to foreknowledge and its relation to free human actions. However, Classic/Reformation Arminianism has always affirmed with Calvinism that God has absolute knowledge of the future–even the smallest detail.
A lot could be said in response to the idea of “foreknew” in verse 29 of Romans 8. I think Ben does a great job summarizing, as always.
But this is something I have dealt with as well, so I wanted to say something (just about foreknowledge). I have never been really satisfied with the view that God simply knew who would choose him and then chose us. To me, it seems to place God on the reactive side of things. This is not to mention that the Scriptures speak of God choosing us, not us choosing him.
With all that said, the Calvinist loves to throw out there that this “foreknew” in verse 29 is meaning “previously loved and affectionately regarded as his own” or as the ESV Bible puts it, “special choice of, or covenantal affection for, his people” in support for their unconditional election position. But perhaps it does not support unconditional any more than conditional. They often reference many other passages for this: Gen. 18:19, Jer. 1:5, Amos 3:2, Rom. 8:29; 11:2.
I challenged this idea when I was coming out of Calvinism. I wanted to see if it could stand up to the scrutiny. I was surprised by what I found.
Some Arminians define “foreknowledge” simply as “prescience of faith in Christ.” On the other hand, some have affirmed both a prescience of faith in Christ and a covenantal affection for his people.
Arminius noted: “God can previously love and affectionately regard as his own no sinner unless He has foreknown him in Christ, and looked upon him as a believer in Christ.” (Arminius III:314).
“Whom he foreknew” seems to me to speak about knowing persons rather than simply knowing facts or something about them. But the two are not exclusive (as Ben pointed out). If God foreknew the elect as being his, it must be that he knew of their belief in Jesus as well. It simply goes without saying! There doesn’t seem to be any conflict with this understanding of foreknowledge and conditional election.
This is where I tend to fall now. I admit the phrase, “election according to foreseen faith” (usually taken strongly from 1 Peter 1:2) is not the best expression we should use for conditional election. Robert Picirilli and others note this as well in some of their writings. But this understanding of foreknowledge or “foreknew” belongs to the Arminian just as much as it does to the Calvinist.
