Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

I am aware of the classical views on this verse, both Calvinist and Arminian/Open. Both camps seem to take "all things" at face value. Recently I read an alternative interpretation of this verse which posits that the translations should read something more like "all these", or "all these things, or "all this". The disputed word is "things" (Strong 3056). So Paul may not be referring to all things in the universe, but may simply be referring to the material in the immediate context.

I know this is a radical departure from how this is traditionally read, and it shocked me at first. However, the context of Rom 8:1 - 8:27 is not talking about God acting in all events at all times, one way or another. As far as a quick look, I can see the context specifically refers to some of the following things which work for the believers good: a) life in the Spirit, the first fruits of the Spirit, and the indwelling of the Spirit, b) the work of Jesus, his suffering, and what it means to us, c) our adoption as children of God and heirs, and lastly d) the subjection of creation to futility.

So then verse 28 is not speaking some warm and fuzzy message that all evil that ever happens has a higher "good" for the believer. It is not saying that when a baby of christian parents dies or a christian woman gets raped or a Hitler kills 5 million + Jews that somehow God is indirectly causing it or even allowing it for a higher "good."

I think God can and does turn lemons into lemonade. And I think that some pain may be allowed for higher potential "good" things. It is just that finite reality tells me that God is NOT clearly working in all things that ever happen in the universe. This interpretation seems to a) square with reality, b) get God off the hook, and c) can be supported by the Greek.

Thoughts?

Thanks JEE.

I enjoy most of your posts and have read some of your website articles on Augustine.

I just think this interpretation makes so much sense. The Greek only means "all things" when the immediate context is "all things" like the repeated occurances in Col 1:15-20.

Sort of like how Rom 9-11 is not about individuals at all when the context is looked at.

We’re just considering the SCOPE of the “all things,” right?

Looks to me like there’s plenty in the context and the verse itself to conclude that the “all things” doesn’t include some things, like the speed of the rotation of Jupiter’s moons or the density fluctuations in a black hole, or even trivial matters on our own planet. Some things really are trivial. Are there people who think otherwise, those who really think that “everything” without qualification, including the particular volume in cubic meters of dust on our moon, contributes something unique in its own right to achieving good for those who love God? I didn't know this view of the "scope" of "all things" was the classical view and that thinking otherwise was such a radical departure.

The “all things” in view, I think, would include at least those things mentioned in vv. 35-39 (like anguish, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, and the sword). If the “things” are to work together for good “FOR them that love God” then it would have to include things that happen “TO them that love God” and this would presummably exclude a lot of trivial stuff going on in the universe. But this just brings us back to the issue of debate between Calvinists, Arminians, and Openness folk. So I guess I don't see what openness folk gain over and against others from arguing that "all things" here is quantified over by Paul's specific concerns and the context of the passage. A traditional Arminian could agree. Heck, a Calvinist could even agree that by "all things" here Paul has in mind only those sorts of things mentioned in the text which happen to those who love God. So we still have to argue on grounds other than the mere 'scope' of the "all things" here whether or not (and if so, on what grounds) God determines or only allows the specific evils he mentions in the passage.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 4/12/2005 3:00:37 PM (GMT-5)

Hi Tom.

I am not trying to use this passage and the alternate interpretation of it to disprove calvinism or even traditional arminian thinking. I agree that accepting my take on the verse does not alone add or subtract anything from those thing.

I just don't see why any open viewer (or traditional Arminian for that matter) would want to or need to believe that in my examples A and B above are working for some good. Why cling to an interpretation simply because it is more comforting?

---

Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. -  Nietzsche

Thanks Mark.

Overall I agree but I want to go further. In the case of Jane Doe's baby dying, yes, God will be working for the good of mother Jane. But what about the baby? How can God be working for the good to someone post-mortem?

I am all for a radically loving God who is all-good/benevolent who within a LFW universe is actively at work. I think we agree that the "blueprint" viewpoint that says all evil events are caused by God for good is wrong. I want to take it further, to the wild idea that not all evil events result in some mysterious "good".

And sorry about the misspelled title. My limitations are showing through.

---

Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. -  Nietzsche

Hello Matt,

I think your right in the immediate sense, but what's God’s long term objective?   From the fall in Genesis to Revelation, there is a theme that we rest are hope in.

Shalom,

Mark 

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 4/13/2005 10:34:49 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 4/13/2005 11:11:17 AM (GMT-5)

Matt: I am all for a radically loving God who is all-good/benevolent who within a LFW universe is actively at work. I think we agree that the "blueprint" viewpoint that says all evil events are caused by God for good is wrong. I want to take it further, to the wild idea that not all evil events result in some mysterious "good".

Tom: Right. Not all events yield good in the end. I don’t think that’s what Paul is saying either. But I do think Paul’s point is that God is redemptively at work in all circumstances doing what a good God would do—seeking to prevent evil and maximize good. So I would agree with the common interpretation that “all things” includes every instance of the sort of things Paul lists (famine, peril, violent acts (i.e., sword), etc.; I wouldn't say the verse only includes 'some' such instances) but just disagree with what Paul is commonly thought to be saying about God’s relationship to these events. I think God’s everywhere redemptively at work in such situations seeking to prevent evil and maximize good.

Viator: I understand Romans 8:28 to simply that "in all things" (the bad, terrible, joyful, abundance) God works for the good of those who love him/are called to according to his purpose. He is present with us in all our circumstances.

Tom: Exactly. I’d only add that God’s not passively present with us in all our circumstances. He’s not just present and watching. He’s present and actively pursuing good in and through us.

Tom

MattBrown said...

Spanknheart: A tougher question for me is why God cursed the world in the first place, subjecting us to decay and death, then turn around and spend thousands of years trying to redeem us.  We’re kicked out of the house (paradise) only to have the Groom persue after us with the promise of redemption and the restoration of paradise.   

MattBrown: For me this is easier to see. This is actually one of the specifics things Paul actually is referring to in context. Elderedge in The Journey of Desire explained it in terms of God as "Divine Thwarter". God's original curse was for the purpose of thwarting our desires. Or specifically our God-given good desires gone terribly wrong and perverted. To help us see the futility of running from God and chasing shadows and idols.

Hello Matt,                                                                                                                                               

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 4/14/2005 8:59:28 AM (GMT-5)

Hi Tom and anyone else.

I think I agree overall.

There still is the situation of Jane Doe's baby and the village in Sudan. How do these situations/events work together for good? Someone explain.

Hey Matt-

Yeah, natural evil. That's the bomb. One can still argue, I think (and hope), that God does all he can to minimize evil and suffering and maximize good and love in the world, including dealing with natural evil. Jeff has wanted to really dive into this question for a long time. Maybe it's time to go for a swim!

Tom

Hi Tom.

Just a clarification on jargon. What is meant by "natural evil"?

IMHO, two things explain natural evil, 1. Genesis and 2. bumperstickers on pickup trucks:

1. The world is fallen

2. Sh*t Happens

Quick note: Mr. Piper also uses this verse as his main piece of evidence that only some are called to God.  Only the elect, only the special ones chosen by God by will be saved.  Preach the Gospel to all, but only God knows who will respond.  Why, because only God knows his secret lovers, the ones justified for salvation and redemption.  You tell me, one wild and crazy guy or what?   Why consider universalism in the next world, if it’s not a universal call from God in this world.  Hmm… no wonder the secular world often thinks Christians are pretentious. 

Here is a short article I found on Rom 8:28. It's focus is the word "good".

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1160