At Mass, we recently heard a passage from Romans 8 that is often referred to as the “golden chain of salvation.” These verses have long been central to debates about predestination, and Calvinists frequently cite them in support of doctrines such as unconditional election and the perseverance of the saints. However, this interpretation misunderstands St. Paul’s argument and rests on a logical error.
Before I get into my argument, it would be beneficial to review the passage from Romans 8 that was read aloud at Mass:
Brothers and sisters:
We know that all things work for good for those who love God,
who are called according to his purpose.
For those he foreknew he also predestined
to be conformed to the image of his Son,
so that he might be the firstborn
among many brothers and sisters.
And those he predestined he also called;
and those he called he also justified;
and those he justified he also glorified.
In my view as a private individual, Paul is making a statement regarding specific people who God knew would be saved and predestined, but is not commenting one way or the other about people who were called but not predestined.
Some in the Reformed tradition have attempted to argue the opposite, saying that because those who are predestined are called, then those who are called are predestined. Here is Charles Spurgeon making his case in one of his sermons: “For whom he predestinated, these he also called.” And if you are called, it follows as a natural inference you are predestinated.”
And later, “If I am called then I am predestinated, there is no doubt about it.”
Despite what some in the Reformed tradition might argue, the text leaves open the possibility that some who are called are not predestined. If you are predestined you are called, but that doesn’t mean that if you are called, you are predestined. In fact, this is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
It goes like this:
- If A, then B.
- B.
- Therefore, A.
Just because A leads to B, that does not mean that B leads to A. An example might go like this: “If it rained, then the sidewalk is wet. The sidewalk is wet; therefore, it rained.” Although the sidewalk would be wet if it rained, there could be different reasons why the sidewalk could be wet besides rain. Spurgeon makes a similar fallacious argument when he argues that if you are predestined, you are called; therefore, if you are called, you are predestined.
Someone might object that this is not a fallacy if being “called” and being “predestined” are logically equivalent. To be specific, if it’s true that being called and being predestined are two ways to say the same thing, then this is not technically a fallacy. For example, this is a completely valid argument:
- If a shape has 180 degrees, it is a triangle.
- Shape x is a triangle.
- Therefore, shape x has 180 degrees.
Since the antecedent and consequent mean the same thing, this is not a fallacy. And so, for a Calvinist interpretation to be valid, called = predestined. However, this must be proved and not assumed. The text of Romans 8 will not help, since it leaves open the possibility that not everyone who is called is predestined. The Calvinist would need to go to other verses, since the converse certainly does not “follow as a natural inference” from Romans 8, as Spurgeon says.
It is important to recognize that identifying a logical error does not by itself prove an entire branch of theology incorrect. Rather, the point is that the argument from “those who are called” to “those who are predestined” requires an additional premise that is not explicitly found in the passage. The text must be allowed to speak on its own terms before theological conclusions are drawn.
To review my positive case, it is my opinion that Paul is talking about people who were predestined for final salvation, so it is true that those people will be glorified. However, that doesn’t mean that others are not called or justified. Not all who are justified are eventually glorified, but the specific people whom Paul is talking about are.
We should be careful not to add the word “all” to the text when it does not include it. Unfortunately, R.C. Sproul did just this in his book on Reformed Theology.
The sense of the text is that all whom God foreknows he predestines. And all whom he predestines he calls. And all whom he calls he justifies. And all whom he justifies he glorifies (168).
Sproul also argues that “the text is elliptical: it does not include the term all but it tacitly implies the word (most translations of the Bible add it).”
Sproul argues that the text implies the word “all,” and he even argues that most translations of the Bible add it, despite that word not being in a single English translation. Of course, this would not be the first time a Protestant added a word to the Bible to make it say something it doesn’t say. Martin Luther’s addition of the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 is a famous example.
In conclusion, Romans 8:29-30 is undoubtedly a profound passage about God’s plan of salvation, but we must be careful not to read more into the text than Paul actually says. The apostle teaches that those whom God foreknew and predestined will certainly be brought to glory, but he does not explicitly state that every person who is called or justified belongs to this same group. By inserting words into the passage, some interpreters make the text say something the author is not intending to say.