Greetings!
I have two-cents in my brain that I would like to throw into the pot of this fabulous discussion.
Romans 8 is being bandied about here and, I will be honest with you, given my upbringing, I grew to despise Romans 8:28-30 because that passage along with Rev 13:8 and Rev 17:8 were the de facto passages provided as the foundations for the logic of Calvinism. I hated them because I could not refute them, and therefore could not refute Calvinism. I stewed in that for a very long time. During that time I learned of Arminianisim, which only left me a little less queasy. Frustration was also adding its unsavory flavor to the stew I was in because I could find no one who was willing to challenge these theologies with me, except to debate the contradiction that results when Calvinism and Arminianisim go toe-to-toe.
To make a long story short, I taught myself how to use the tools of Biblical research and eventually discovered exactly how Calvinism was translated into the English texts, which meant that neither Calvinism, nor its obverse side, Arminianisim, were the theology of the first Believers!
Soon a friend came along and introduced me to Universalisim! Cool! I still remember well all the instantaneous clicking that went on in my brain as the connections snapped one into another.
I was amazed to discover that the very method I had developed to refute Calvinism was the exact same method Universalist used to refute the deliberate mis-transations of aion and *aionios * and the passages wherein three proper nouns are translated with one generic verb-cum-noun, “hell.”
This changed the meaning of everything.
Including those pesky scriptures in Romans 8 and Revelation.
Then I discovered the Greek scholar A.E. Knoch’s translation, The Concordant Literal Version, and, through the confirmation of his translation, I fell in love with Romans 8:28-30 and Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 because those three scriptures, as they were originally written, seemed to support some very different thoughts that I was then wrestling with; thoughts that later became my heart.
So, if you will bear with me, I would like to present those passages from the KJV and the CLV, in parallel, and then provide a brief-as-possible comment that might bring a different perspective to this debate.
Of course punctuation changes everything. As the joke goes:
“Let’s eat Grandma!”
“Let’s eat, Grandma!”
Commas save lives.
Knoch was led in his understanding to join verses 8 & 9 with the conjunction, “that,” and a comma - as opposed to the KJV translators separating the two verses with a period followed by beginning the next sentence with the preposition, “For” (Indeed, the artificial verse division is because of this splitting of the thought!). The meaning is now changing.
Also, Knoch chose to translate proginosko, with the simple past tense verb conjugate, “foreknew,” while the KJV translators used the present tense conjugate, “foreknow.”
The difference between simple past and present tense is that the first tells of an action as if it already happened, while the second tells of an action as if it is happening right now.
The meaning is now changed even further!
Also, the addition of the pronoun, “his,” before purpose in the KJV is purely from supposition because none of the Greek pronoun forms are in the original text prior to, “purpose.”
Therefore, the article, “the,” as Knoch translated, is more appropriate: So, “His purpose.” becomes “the purpose…” This makes an even bigger difference!
Additionally Knoch translated proorizo with the phrase, “designates beforehand,” rather than an especial coined word, “predestinate.”
The difference in this is difficult to see if one doesn’t know that the second root word from which proorizo is built horizo carries the meaning of designate not “destinate.” The difference is that to designate is to assign, to destine is to fix one’s fate.
So, in the KJV translation it is implied that God’s purpose for those human beings He foreknows was to, “destine them before” (destined before what?) to be conformed to the Image of Jesus, which is God’s purpose for them, and by implication, them alone.
Thus, this passage is separated out from the context and twisted to support Calvinisim.
In Knoch’s translation verse 27 must come into play to understand how he saw his way clear to translate the way he did; for the context of this chapter is a monologue addressed to Believers on how the Spirit of Jesus makes a difference in the life of those in whom this Spirit makes His home. Thus the passage in question is a reminder to them, as well as an exposition on, the process of how God comes to designate those who are to receive this Spirit.
So, God foreknew the, “we,” of whom He says, “Now, we are aware…” because he is, “searching the hearts” (plural) and through the insight He gains for being able to see into the heart, God is aware of what His indwelling Spirit’s disposition is concerning any single Believer.
Therefore, it is by searching the heart that God foreknew anyone and, in this search, given what He finds there, He assigns (designates) certain ones to be reached by His Spirit, before they actually believe.
Obviously then His foreknowledge comes from this ability to search the heart, which is a lot different than foreknowledge of someone before they ever thought a thought.
He then reminds them of what they know from their own experience of salvation and the infusion of holy spirit they received and reminds them that this process of designating and calling and justifying and eventually glorifying a believer applies also to any others of whom God foreknew for searching their heart.
Given all that is written in the Bible about the heart, this makes more sense than the KJV idea that God sent Jesus just to save those whom he chose to save before they were ever born.
One word. Just one word is all it takes to make a difference.
And so, the debate over this one word rages hot, still, exactly because Calvinism (and Arminianisim) falls to dust if katabole does not mean, “foundation.”
So, why did Knoch dare to tread on the sacrosanct and translate, katabole, with, “disruption?”
The succinct answer is because his learning brought him to the conclusion that, “disruption,” was the best English word to express the original meaning in katabole. There is a lot more to be said about this word that would take a lot of typing to convey.
However, all I wish to do for now is point out that by changing this one word the meaning is changed in this passage from an imperative that discloses a book already written of those who will be saved from before the foundations of the earth were laid… Into a revealing that there is a book that is being written in, even now, with the names of the redeemed; and that entries into this book began at the disruption of the world, which can only be true if the world was already, “founded!”
It’s no wonder to me that there is so much debate over this word.
Why?
Because if the Apostle John had been told to choose themelios over katabole there would be no debate possible and Calvinism would have its most important supporting scripture, and, in that, Calvinism would be unassailable.
So, the question this raises is, “When did the the disruption of the world occur?”