Summary Of 'Essay On Foreknew' By Thomas Osborne

After reading the opening I agree with Osborne that Paul does a very detailed job summarizing the doctrine of salvation (above all other epistles written). I believe just as Osborne does that this letter was intended to be read to the church at Rome and to Christians everywhere. Osborne reports that nearly all scholars believe in the unity of Romans even though several key doctrines are discussed in depth, which might indicate several letters. Until I read Osborne’s commentary I had never heard of biblical scholars believing that Romans was the collection of two or three letters. Osborne sites the removal of “in Rome” in 1:7 and the removal of “to you who are at Rome” in Romans 1:15 (in some later Greek manuscripts), and he believes these lines were omitted to make it appear to be a general
I had to see how he interpreted this verse, because I must admit, I have always been amazed by it. Osborne dives into this topic by reckoning between two possibilities Calvinist and Arminianism view of election. Osborne list several commentaries which point to the word “foreknew” as meaning “predestined.” Osborne sites several reasons that this word “foreknew” goes beyond a simple choice, because Osborne thinks it goes deeper than God knowing our choices. However, Osborne comes back with the conclusion that God had foreknowledge of who would make a faith decision. I like Osborne’s view on the church election and individual election. Osborne believes this foreknowledge God has was not simply the church, but each single individual, which would make up the church. Osborne’s concept on individual election/ calling goes against Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s idea of church election over individual election. I have read several German theologians who did not believe in individual calling but only a calling to the church. I believe this 8:28 and 8:29 would indicate some type of individual