Why is Romans 8 Not Prooftext for Calvinistic "Perseverance of the Saints"?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Defeating Calvinism, with a Little Help from a (so far back then) Calvinist · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Why is Romans 8 Not Prooftext for Calvinistic "Perseverance of the Saints"?

Here are the two immediately relevant verses:

29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren 30 And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Repetition from the Stuckey prompted* video comment:

1) the first two concepts are if chronologically ordered indication that God foreknew some before He predestined them.
2) because all the following pairs of concepts are chronologically ordered so that the first stated term comes before the next stated one.

All the examples:

• the predestination is from eternity, but the call comes in time, i e God's call to Abraham when he was 75, or God's call to Saulus on the road to Damascus.
• The calling comes before the justification, which involves a yes to the call;
• the justification, being in this life, is prior to the glory in the life to come.

One could reply, the foreknowledge and the predestination are both from eternity, and there is therefore no temporal sequence between them. This doesn't deny a metatemporal or motivational sequence, within God's eternal decision. So, the text is in fact a proof text for scientia media. Luís de Molina's concept of it would be close.

But the Calvinists would use the passage also in another way, namely to deny that any truly justified person could ever get lost. This would be deduced from the last pair:

And whom he justified, them he also glorified.

If taken with complete generality and unconditionally, this would spell out the doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints" ... Two replies.

However, (first), there is a possibility that one or more pairs of concepts may hold the key to this being conditional, on the persons free will.

Whom He called, them He also justified, is this universal?

Jesus called a rich man to poverty, and the rich man walked away sadly. The call was conditional on the rich man's free will.

However, it is possible that the rich man was already justified, and didn't miss out on Heaven, but only on safer and happier ways of getting there with more merits for eternity. It is also possible he later followed the call, like the younger son who at first said no to his father, but then went on to do his bidding.

The other pair is, foreknowledge and predestination. Those who are not predestined to glory are technically in the Catholic Theology not at all known as "predestined to damnation" - that would be heretical, and go against the Council of Frankfurt "Deus neminem predestinat ad malum" - but as "foreknown" (i e foreknown as not making it to heaven). This means, both the predestined and the not predestined are both foreknown by God, so the first pair

whom he foreknew, he also predestinated

is proof that the sequence is in fact conditional, and not automatic and unconditional. Except of course that predestination itself cannot be foiled.

Further, second, one can say, the last pair

whom he justified, them he also glorified

is only validly universally true in the given context of precisely predestination, since this is mentioned before.

The one problem which can be posed is, if predestination cannot be foiled, how is this not irresistable grace? First, because God's offer of grace is extended further than to only the predestined ones. Second, because predestination is never foiled, this is only by grace being unresisted or efficient, not by its being also irresistable. The practical consequence is, one can say "Deus, facienti quod in se est, non denegat gratiam" - God is not refusing grace to anyone doing what he is then and there, with nature and with graces already given, able to do. The very thing the Reformers Luther and Calvin so vehemently denied.

A further confirmation in the previous verses:

25 But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience. 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God. 28 And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.

To them that love God ... reminds a little of St. Augustine saying, what Crowley gave a truncated quote of: "have God's love, and do what thou wilt"** - but either way, it makes nonsense of the idea that "the natural man is unable to love God" namely not just "out of his own powers" as we Catholics say, but "totally" as the Reformers say, up to a presumed and always dramatic moment when total hatred of God yields to total love of God motivated only by this remarcable mercy and never by anything else.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

* i e Defeating Calvinism, with a Little Help from a (so far back then) Calvinist ** Habe caritatem, et fac quod vis.