Dennis Tuuri

I’ll begin reading in verse 16. Romans 8:16 through the end of the chapter. Our particular emphasis will be on verses 29 and 30. But I want to put it in its context. The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. If so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

And not only they, but ourselves also, which had the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Likewise the spirit also helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what we should pray.

Therefore, as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercessions for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called, according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God before us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yay, rather, that is risen again, who is ever at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword? As it is written, for thy sake we are killed all the day long. We are consumed. We are counted rather as sheep for the slaughter.

Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loveth us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Let us pray. Father, we pray that your Holy Spirit might illuminate this text for understanding, Lord God, that we might praise you for it, rest assured in our souls, and be motivated to holiness and thankfulness. We pray that these truths would be worked out in our lives to you in all that we say and do. In Christ’s name we ask it. Amen.

For those of you who take a look at the long outline kind of go, “Oh boy, I will try to get through this clearly and fairly quickly. I’ll have to remind myself to slow down.” When our new members class this morning, I tried to cover infant baptism in one week and went 100 miles an hour and next week we’ll all reflect upon what was said and hopefully I won’t do that in this sermon.

To those of you who like real long sermons and detailed things like this, I do not make any pretense or promise by this beginning outline for the series on the Canons of Dort to produce such outlines every week. Might, might not. We’ll see.

Couple of errors at the top of the thing in introduction: Romans 8:20 and 30. It really should be Romans 8:29 and 30. And then my middle initial should be capitalized. Romans 8:29 and 30 presents what I’ve referred to as the golden chain.

Some of this isn’t my terminology. Other men have talked about this for a long number of years in the church. And it is this chain that is such a wonderful statement to us of God’s sovereignty and particularly relative to our salvation. This is then the text I’ve chosen to sort of begin our studies going through the Canons of Dort. And I want to begin by talking historically about those Canons a little bit and then move to the text and particularly spend a lot of time on the first element of that golden chain which is God’s foreknowledge.

So let’s start then with the Canons of Dort themselves. First on your outline: Canons in Acts 15. Acts 15 is the record of the Jerusalem Council. There was a controversy in a particular church. Men had gone to that church saying you had to be circumcised in order to be a Christian. Members of that church then Paul and the leaders and some members from the church then went up to Jerusalem. They held an ecumenical council.

By that I mean there were various churches represented there. That council produced canons or law. Canon is just an old-fashioned word meaning church law. And so the law came forth from the Jerusalem Council saying no, this isn’t necessary, but you do have to be careful to observe the law and reference the holiness code of the second portion of the book of Leviticus. In any event, Acts 15 represents a New Testament example and because of that example, a warrant for church senates.

Senate is another old-fashioned word. It just means get together. The Presbyterians call their big get-togethers general assemblies. The Reformed people call them senates and other people call them get-togethers. So it’s a get together, but it is an important one because the churches are coming together to consider a particular truth of scripture. And so that’s what we have biblical warrant for such things and I won’t take the time now to prove this, but it’s my contention that the pronouncement from the Jerusalem Council was put forth as the truth of God’s word as it related to the controversy and even the churches weren’t represented there would have that truth declared to them and if they wanted to object to it could only be on scriptural grounds. There’s a binding nature to church councils.

Now in our day and age, such councils really can’t exist except within a very small portion of the church. In the early days of the church, the ecumenical creeds resulted from councils where all the church would come together and declare positions orthodox or heretical. And then with the Reformation and the split up of the churches, before that even the split between the east and the west church around the end of the first millennium, ecumenical councils truly ecumenical of all people represented can really no longer occur, at least aren’t occurring yet, but we pray for the day when they will occur.

Now, it’s interesting that this particular senate, get together, meeting of the churches which was held at Dordrecht or Dort. I’ve seen both names used. I don’t understand the difference between the two, but this is talking about a city named Dordrecht or Dort. This city is located in South Holland. And this get together the church there has a relationship to the Reformation.

Following your outline, a little bit of background or history. There was a man named Jacob Hermszoon or Jacob Arminius or Jacobus Arminius or James Arminius. We have these difficulties with names because you’re dealing with different languages and people would take Latin names as well as having their own name. So that’s part of it—these are all the same fellow. His dates were from 1560 to October 19, 1609. And he was a man who lived in the Netherlands. Very bright fellow.

He eventually became a professor and he preached as well in churches in the Netherlands. And as he progressed in his age, he regressed in his understanding of the Reformed faith. And he began to date differences with the Reformed doctrine of God’s election relative to salvation particularly. And it’s worth pointing out that when those differences began to occur with him, he did not state them openly.

He would talk to his students in private about them and he would talk to members of the church about them. And while you might think, well, he was just trying to be a good guy and not openly break with the church, it isn’t good to do that. And we see in the history of the church many heresies start when people are not forthright about what they believe and the struggles they’re having and as a result develop bad opinions or positions at variance with the scripture and aren’t really forthright about it.

So their consciences become despoiled. Their consciences get guilty and they then begin to progress even more into error. Very important that our consciences remain pure with God. Remember, we’ve talked about that in both the studies through Acts and other sermons I’ve given. The importance of a good conscience before men.

Well, anyway, this fellow began to develop other opinions and he died in 1609. The men who ruled the government then began to have an inquiry into his teachings because they became quite divisive in the context of the church.

But after his death in 1610, his followers drew up what they called five remonstrances. So they’re called the Remonstrants and all that means is they were five points that they wanted to change the doctrine of the church according to these five points. They wanted the Belgic Confession which was their standard then to be changed to represent five things that they believed and these five things were in opposition to what the Belgic Confession taught.

So they made a remonstrance or appeal to the church and the state that these are what we think the scriptures really do mean. Well, the state didn’t know what to do about that and after some time passed, it was really at the urging of James I of England. Now this is important because what we’re talking about in the Canons of Dort is beginning really a series of sermons focusing on the sovereignty of God. Now James the First of England was not a good guy. Scott has written a book on James the First, “The King is Fool” or “The Fool is King,” whatever it is—anyway, it’s an excellent book and it shows his depravity etc. And yet God used James I to get this all going to form some orthodox doctrines relative to the church.

Now, that’s kind of like Acts 15 because in Acts 15, people in one geographical locality being troubled by men who are promulgating a doctrine that supposedly came from Jerusalem. So, they went back to Jerusalem and said, “Hey, you know, these guys came out from you, but we don’t think they’re right.” Well, James I heard of the teachings of Jacob Arminius and his followers. You know, as doctrines do, they were going out into the rest of the church.

And so in England, they were concerned about this heresy going on in the Netherlands that was beginning to infect other groups. So just like in Acts 15, they say, “Hey, take care of this problem. You’ve got guys that are coming out that you’ve sanctioned, you’ve ordained into office and put into professorships, teaching something contrary to scripture.” So as a result of that, they held a church council.

They sent an assembly of the church. And like Acts 15, it wasn’t just related to one group of people. It was international in scope. And I’ve listed there various countries that were asked to send representatives to this senate or ecclesiastical assembly at Dort in Holland. And the only one of those groups that did not actually send representatives was France. England’s there, from Scotland, the Palatinate, Hesse, other places.

They all sent representatives and actually participated in this Senate. France didn’t because the king ordered them. They were all getting all ready to go and the king said, “No, you can’t go.” So, that was that.

So, it was an international assembly. And I want to mention one thing here in passing. It wasn’t just Presbyterian or Reformed. The men that came from England were Church of England guys. And yet they participated in that senate. It was ecumenical. Now, maybe not of the entire church because the breakup had come with Roman Catholicism, etc. But in terms of the continuing church from the Roman Catholic Church, it was truly international. It wasn’t just international, it crossed what we would call today denominational lines, okay, in a big way and involved guys from England as well.

And I wanted to read a couple of quotes here from a historical account of this assembly. There was a man named Bishop Hall there from the Church of England and he said this about his interaction with these Presbyterian Reformed guys at the Senate of Dort.

He said there was no place upon earth so like heaven as the Senate of Dort and where he should be more willing to dwell. That’s what Bishop Hall said. He said a lot more than that.

Here’s some other quotes from these English Episcopalians essentially or Anglicans who are represented at the Senate of Dort. He said that they urged—this is a communication to the Senate from these men. We urge this with our whole might and to inculcate this one thing: that you should all continue to adhere to the common faith and the confession of your own and the other churches, which if you do, oh happy Holland, oh chaste spouse of Christ, oh prosperous republic, this your afflicted church, tossed with the billows of differing opinions, will yet reach the harbor in safety and smile at all the storms excited by the cruel adversities that you now face.

That this may at length be obtained, let us seek for the things which make for peace. We are brethren, let us also be colleagues. What have we to do with the infamous titles of party names? We are Christians. Let us also be of the same mind. We are one body. Let us also be unanimous. By the tremendous name of the omnipotent God. By the pious and loving bosom of your common mother. By our own souls, by the holy bowels of Jesus Christ our savior.

My brethren, seek peace, pursue peace. This is a communication to the council. Wonderful words of grace from men who had differing views of polity and yet didn’t let those differing views of polity break up the unity of the church and instead urged it upon them.

Later on when the Bishop of Exeter published his own notes he said this about the Senate of Dort. Blessed be God there is no difference in any essential point between the churches of England and her sister Reformed churches. We unite in every article of Christian doctrine without the least variation as the full and absolute agreement between their public confessions and our test and ours testifies. The only difference between us consists in our mode of constituting the external ministry. And even with respect to this point, we are of one mind because we all profess to believe that it is not an essential of the church, although in the opinion of many, it is a matter of importance to our well-being, and we all retain a respectful and friendly opinion of each other, not seeing any reason why so small a disagreement should produce any alienation of affection among us.

And then finally, one short quote: We did not differ from the Church of England in any fundamental article of Christian faith. And that was on the part of the Reformed people.

So the point of this is that while we want to look at the Canons as a representation of God’s sovereignty and election, we should also look at the Senate held at Dort as a wonderful picture of the unity of Christians of different political ecclesiastical polity stripes and differences and yet they cooperated together.

So this particular council has significance for us because it was international. It was requested in the part of people that were being affected by heresies and it brought together people in a wonderful spirit of unity.

The Canons of Dort were produced by the senate and the senate began with an oath taken and I wanted to read that oath to you. They began actually with prayer and fasting for a period of time prior to the actual convening of the senate on November 13, 1618.

And this is the oath they all swore to. I promise before God in whom I believe and whom I worship as being present in this assembly and as being the searcher of all hearts that during the course of the proceedings of this senate which will examine and decide not only the five points and all the differences resulting from them but also any other doctrines I will use no human writing but only the word of God which is an infallible rule of faith and during all these discussions I will only aim at the glory of God the peace of the church and especially the preservation of the purity of doctrine so help me my savior Jesus Christ.

I beseech him to assist me by his holy spirit. Wonderful declaration that these truths will be founded only upon the word of God and not the writings of men.

And so the senate of Dort met from November of 1618 to May of 1619. And they produced the Canons of Dort. And I’ve listed on your outlines there the five points, the five heads of doctrine as they were referred to. So they took these five statements by the Armenians saying this is how we want things changed around here and they addressed each one of them and made positive statements what the scriptures say about that element and then they also rejected the errors of the Remonstrance.

So they said we believe for instance in the first head of doctrine in divine election and reprobation this is what the scriptures preach and they wrote a bunch of stuff down and then they said anybody who believes this is wrong and they wrote a bunch of stuff down they made a distinction a discrimination between right and wrong. And that’s a positive thing in the church. It’s a positive thing and that’s what they did.

Now, I’ve got TULIP or TULIP. TULIP is an acronym relating to the people used to memorize the five points of Calvinism. Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, TULIP. And really, they come from the five heads of doctrine at the Senate of Dort, the canons or church law that produced at Dort City in Holland. And really, they kind of reverse the order a little bit in the first two.

Because where they started with was divine election or reprobation or unconditional election. In other words, another way to put it. The second head of doctrine was the death of Christ and the redemption of men thereby which is limited atonement is what people call it today. But really it means a lot more than that. Talks about redemption.

The third and fourth heads of doctrine were combined into one section. And that section was the corruption of man. Total depravity, his conversion to God and the manner thereof, irresistible grace. See, so they put together in three and four really what we would call total depravity and irresistible grace.

And then finally the last point was the perseverance of the saints.

So those five heads of doctrine produced as church law by the ecumenical council, buttressed and supported by Acts 15 and its legitimacy of putting out these requirements upon the church of orthodoxy. These things have come down to us nearly 400 years later as important articulations of the faith.

Now, that’s all I’m going to say about the Canons of Dort today, but we’ll get into the specific delineation of them next week. I brought enough copies for every family to have one or two of the first head of doctrine, the positive statements made by the canon, by the synod, and its rejection of errors.

And I’ll have those in the gymnasium at our agape or love feast for you to pick up there if you want to read those in preparation for the next couple of sermons which will be on that first head of doctrine articulated by the synod as divine election and reprobation.

But what I want to do today is to talk briefly about the golden chain in Romans 8:29 and 30 because really one of the big things I want this—I pray to God that we can accomplish here in the next few months—is to not only bolster up our understanding of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty.

You know Calvin said that the election of God and predestination is not a doctrine for disputation. It’s a doctrine of tremendous comfort. And if you understand that flow of Romans 8, you see predestination there right in the middle of a tremendous statement of comfort to the believer. We want to understand that in the depth of our being. We want to understand the relationship of predestination and God’s sovereignty as a source of comfort in our Christian life and how to deal particularly with difficulties.

We also however want to be equipped as people who have been given in stewardship by God an understanding of these biblical truths, who are being part of the church of Jesus Christ, it’s being recalled to understand the basis of the faith to fight once more as the Reformers fought for the absolute sovereignty of God. The Reformation—that’s what it was about. The Reformation percolated out in various ways.

But everything, the continual, the constant thread amongst the Reformers is an assertion of the sovereignty of God as opposed to the sovereignty of man. And we have been given that great truth by God, this church, and we don’t give it just so we can be comforted by it. That’s part of it. We’re given it in stewardship from God that we might take that to other believers, other members of the elect community of the Lord Jesus Christ, that it might impact what we do.

So if you get this outline down, the golden chain, if you can just remember Romans 8:29 and 30, and after a short exposition today, understand a little bit of the first couple of terms, and then it’ll give you a tool by which you can talk to your neighbors and friends about this tremendous doctrine of God’s sovereignty and particularly relative to election. In other words, I want this—it’s supposed to be one of those—what you know we used to call these transferable concepts, right?

Paul said, you know, to Timothy entrust these things to men who would entrust them to other men. And so as our church, I want us to be able to get this kind of outline down. That’s why I put it in outline form. Keep it, use it in your discussions with your friends and relatives and other Christians that you know about God’s sovereignty. It’s the way to point it out to them. Okay, so that’s the idea.

So let’s go through this golden chain. The first element of the chain we’re talking now in verses 29 and 30 of the text: whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate them he also called and whom he called he also justified. And whom he justified he also glorified.

This is called a golden chain ‘cuz all these things are linked together aren’t they? The text it begins at the foreknowledge of God and then it moves to predestination. Those first two of the five elements of the golden chain occur in eternity past, so to speak. The eternal council of God, he foreknows people and he predestines them. And then in the context of the temporal realities, he calls those people that he has foreknown and predestined. He calls them and justifies them. And eventually in our future, he glorifies us fully in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, they’re all in the past tense the way Paul writes them here because what God has intended is an accomplished fact from his perspective. Okay? It’s the—this has been accomplished because God has determined it to be so and it is therefore an accomplished fact. But for us, that last element remains yet future. And for some members of the elect community of Jesus Christ, the calling and justification remain yet future because they’re not born yet.

But they’ve been foreknown and predestined. Okay? So that’s the golden chain.

And this golden chain begins with the foreknowledge of God: for whom he did foreknow. What does it mean to foreknow? I’ve given you a couple of verses. I could give you a ton of verses. I don’t mean to implied by the outline, please don’t misunderstand this. I just did not list out a ton of verses for foreknowledge being a prescience or an intellectual appreciation or an intellectual grasp of what will come to pass.

That’s one thing the word can mean—to know something intellectually before it comes to pass. Now, God knows everything that’s going to come to pass, right? And so, it could mean that. That’s one thing the word could mean here. The other thing that the word could mean is to forelove someone. We’ll talk about that in a moment. And what you got to decide when you come to this text is what does it mean?

The Arminian will come to this text to say, well, he foreknew that you were going to exercise faith and therefore he predestined you. See, I believe in predestination, but the basis of it is that God looked down the long line of history and saw, you know, John out there and said, “Hey, you know, John’s going to make a decision for me. He’s going to exercise faith, so I’m going to predestinate him.” Okay? And the word can mean that. It can mean to look ahead and to know something.

And I’ve given a couple examples. There are a lot more examples I could have used. The word foreknow is comprised of two words: the first word meaning before and the second word meaning to know. So it means to beforeknow or to know something before it occurred.

So the verses here—some of them represent words, the know side of this compound word foreknow, and to know something can mean an intellectual understanding of something or to know something can also mean to love or to place your particular affection upon someone.

And now we’re going to look at First Peter, chapter 1, verses 1 and 2. Well, verses 1 and 2. Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Grace be unto you and peace be multiplied.

Here we have the same kind of thing going on. It’s a parallel text. There are electing to the foreknowledge of God. And again it doesn’t answer the question but what does it mean? Well, it gives us a hint of what it means because it says that they’re elected according to the foreknowledge of God through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience. It doesn’t say through the foreknowledge of God of their obedience. It says their elect according to the foreknowledge, sanctified by the Spirit unto obedience.

It places obedience as the subject of the elect and the foreknown after the foreknowledge of God in the logical connection here. Okay. So, here’s the first text you want to put down as a proof text to say no, it can’t mean just know it beforehand that we’re going to do something, we’re going to obey or exercise faith. Here it says the foreknowledge results in obedience. But let’s look at some other verses then of what the text could mean, what the word could mean.

Romans 11:2, God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Okay. Says that God foreknew certain people and he doesn’t cast them away. What ye not the scripture say of Elias? How he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed the prophets, you know, goes on and on and on. And then in verse 5, even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace and if by grace then it is no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace.

So Romans 11:2 is a picture there that God foreknows people particularly apart from other people and the point of this is he’s not cast away the people which he foreknew—this is a particular people is what he’s saying and these are people that God has foreknown particularly from other people okay. So it’s his—he sets his affection upon these people referenced in Romans 11:2.

Psalm 1:6 and you’ll see the same now, or go to the Old Testament different language Hebrew and not Greek. In the Greek you have this combination of words. The same thing’s true of the Old Testament—knowledge in the Old Testament can mean intellectual understanding of something or it can mean love okay in a particular way.

Psalm 1:6, the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous but the way of the ungodly shall perish. Well, if it means intellectual attainment, what he doesn’t know the way of the ungodly. Well, of course he does in the sense of understanding intellectually. But it know means something different here. The Lord knows the way of the righteous. He sets his particular affection upon those that he brought to righteousness. It’s a differentiation that’s made.

1 Corinthians 8:3, if any man love God, the same is known of him. Well, you know what? If this means intellectual knowledge, then everybody is known of God and yet everybody doesn’t love God.

Amos 3:2, you only have I known of all the families on the earth. Now it’s interesting. Therefore, I will punish you for your iniquities. He sets his particular affection and desire upon them, but he also then increases their responsibility because of that blessing of his knowledge of them.

Matthew 7:23, our savior says that there’ll be some that come up to him and say, “Well, we did this and this and this for you.” And he says, “Uh, I will.” He says I will tell them I never knew you. Depart from me ye that work iniquity. Same word. So it doesn’t mean intellectual capacity here. Clearly he, Jesus is omniscient. He knows all things. Means something else.

Exodus 2:25. God looked upon the children of Israel and God had respect unto them. Particularly respect unto them. He sets his affection upon them.

James 1, verse 5. Before I, Jeremiah rather, 1 verse 5. Before I formed thee in the belly. I knew thee particularly. Hosea 13:5, I did know thee in the wilderness in the land of great doubt. And there the implication is that he knows them in the sense of looking for them, taking care of them, having his affection upon them, and his provision for them.

Galatians 4:9, but now after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements. Their knowledge of God is predicated upon his knowledge of them, his choosing them, his particular affection upon them.

2 Timothy 2:19, Nevertheless, the foundation of God stand sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his. Again, it’s just like Psalm 1:6, a particular knowledge there.

Okay. So, God gives us a revelation here. And this revelation says that this word know could mean to intellectually discern something ahead of time, to foreknow something, or it can mean to set one’s particular interests, affections, love, choice upon a particular people. Those are the two possibilities of what this word could mean and we have to decide which is the best interpretation of this word.

As we do this, we recognize that if what we mean by foreknowledge is the foreknowledge of faith. Let’s grant to the Arminian he’s right for just a minute. Let’s say that he’s right that it’s those that God foreknew have faith that are predestinated. Grant that for a minute. But if that’s true, then that faith that is foreknown by God, if that’s what it’s referring to here, is as this quote from John Murray indicates, the faith that God foresees is the faith he himself creates.

I mean, the scriptures are replete with references that faith is not ours, it’s a gift of God, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9, it’s the gift of God. John 6:44, no man can come to me except that I draw him. John 6:65, he says that uh no man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my father. So even the response of man is the gift of God according to these texts.

So even if it is granting the assumption that what it means is foreknowledge in the sense of prior intellectual understanding that something will occur, that this person will be seen as having faith—that faith itself is the creation of God and his gift and therefore to quote Murray again from his commentary.

Hence his eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom he foresees as believing and we are thrown back upon the differentiation which proceeds from God’s own eternal and sovereign election to faith and its consequences. In other words, it doesn’t do any good to say that it’s an understanding beforehand that a person is going to have faith because the other scriptures tell us that faith is his gift.

So, you’re back to the same place. It’s those that he has decided to give the gift of faith to, call to himself, to give unto them that they respond to the call of God that he foresees as having that. So, even if you grant the assumption of the Arminian, it doesn’t get him out of the pickle of God’s sovereign choice if it’s based upon his faith. It is faith that is God’s gift.

But we believe that actually there is good and sound reasons to argue that this foreknowledge is not a prior understanding of something to occur, but rather it is God setting his particular love, choice, affection, covenantal presence upon a particular people for his sovereign pleasure.

We list the reasons on the outline. Verse 29 is a differentiating statement about whom, not what. In other words, it’s differentiating some people, right? He foreknows some people who are predestined and called and justified and glorified and not everybody is called and justified and glorified etc. Some people go to hell. There’s a differentiation made. But the text to be honest with the clear meaning of the text doesn’t say anything about what he sees beforehand.

It’s talking about a differentiation of persons whom he foreknew is what the text says. Okay. God foreknows every man and all things. So it can’t mean prior knowledge. If it’s a differentiation of whom, then it’s a differentiation that drives us to the interpretation that the word is as it is used in various other places—a word of special placing affection, choice, selection upon.

Secondly, a proper exegesis of the text as opposed rather to eisegesis demands the simplest interpretation. The Arminian wants to add a condition into this verse that isn’t there. He wants to say foreknew that this guy was going to become a Christian or that this was going to happen but it isn’t there. The simplest interpretation unless the text can’t be interpreted this way—the simplest interpretation should be stuck with.

Exegesis means to draw something out of a text. Eisegesis means to put something into a text. Along this line, I think it’s significant what John Calvin said in his introduction to this text in his commentary. He said that we indeed know that when salvation is the subject men are disposed to begin with themselves and to imagine certain preparations by which they would anticipate the favor of God.

Hence, Paul teaches us that those whom he had spoken of as loving God had been previously chosen by him. All things work together for good to those that love God, who are the called according to his purpose. So, as soon as he says for those who love God, what we tend to do, Calvin says, is when salvation is talked about, we tend to look at yeah, how much we love God and what there is in us that prepared us to love God when he revealed himself to us.

But Paul after talking about our loving God, goes on immediately to say who are the called according to his purpose. See, we weren’t loving him because of ourselves. We’re loving him because we were called to his purpose. And then he goes into verses 29 and 30. For whom he foreknew. The whole flow, the whole drive of the text is God being active, active and man being passive, passive until he responds to that effectual calling with the love of God that’s referenced in verse 28.

So the simplest interpretation of the text says that it must be to forelove and not to foreknow in the intellectual sense.

Three. The third reason: see faith, good works are concurrence with his call. All are the effects of predestination. And I’ve listed three verses for you there. We won’t read them. But it’s important to see that Acts 13:48 says that faith is the result of God’s destination. Ephesians 2:10 says that our good works are the result of God’s predestination of us, his call, and in 2 Timothy 1:9 says that his call, his effectual call, the proper response to his call—that is also the effect of God’s predestination.

And so if it is faith or good works or the proper response to God that’s supposedly foreknown by God intellectually, the fact is all of those things are the result of predestination. And predestination according to the text follows in a logical sequence after God’s foreknowledge of people. Okay? So if predestination brings faith, good works and a proper response, then it can’t be inserted back into the beginning of the golden chain.

The chain starts with the sovereign love of God where he chooses a particular people in contradistinction and differentiation from people that he doesn’t choose.

Wanted to quote from Hodge’s commentary on Romans at this point. As this conformity to Christ—he’s talking here about how we were predestined to a particular purpose, to be conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s what the text says. He says as this conformity to Christ includes our moral likeness to him. So we’re conformed to the image of Christ and that includes our moral likeness to the Lord Jesus Christ.

And as this embraces all that is good in us. It is clear that no supposed excellence originating from our own resources can be the ground of our being chosen as God’s people since this excellence is indicated in the end to which we are predestinated.

Olson in his commentary said: I remark here in passing that according to Paul’s doctrine, uh, that God does not foreknow those who by their own decision will become holy but he himself creates that decision in them.

Okay. So, faith and good works and a proper response and a love to God. These are all part of—this is who we are as we’re conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ. In him all goodness dwells. And these good things in us are a result of our being conformed to his image. And that conformity to his image is driven by his predestination. You see? So, you can’t jump into the middle of the chain and say somehow the attributes that are produced by the predestination which was produced by the foreknowledge is itself the beginning of the whole process.

It’s just illogical. It’s terrible exegesis of the text. You know, I don’t like to go on like this. I mean, the text clearly says what it says and the text clearly says that God chooses some people and not others and not out of his good pleasure. He got nothing to do with us. And the scriptures say this beginning to end. But you are going to run across people and maybe you’ve been taught some of these things yourself who are going to use these various arguments and want to be equipped to talk with people about these truths and articulate a proper exegesis of this particular verse.

And if you do that, if you just get the golden chain down, then everything else we’ll talk about in the next few months in the Canons don’t flow out of this foreknowledge or forelove of God of particular people.

And finally—well, not finally actually—fourth, the entire, I’ve mentioned this already, but the entire text stresses God’s action, man’s passivity. A foreknowledge that determines existence, not existence that determines God’s foreknowledge. I mean, the whole thrust of the text is the security of knowing that God is sovereign. When we place our actions at the beginning of all that, we move—it’s a terrible injustice to the text itself.

And then finally, some people will tell you, well, yeah, but if that’s the case, then foreknowledge is the same as predestination. If all foreknowledge means that God chose some people not others, then it means he—it’s the same as predestination. But that isn’t true. Foreknowledge says God chooses some people. Predestination says what he’s choosing us to. One talks about the object. The other talks about the end for those particular objects.

To predestinate is to beforehand determine a destiny or destination or end point of something. Okay? If you’re going to Florida, you know, Howard went to Florida a couple—he predestinated that he was going to get on a plane and go to Florida. He determined ahead of time his destination would be in Florida. Predestination doesn’t mean anything apart from saying what it’s unto. Okay.

Foreknowledge speaks of those whom God chooses. Predestination says the end to which God chooses us. So don’t let people, you know, throw you by saying, “Well, if you’re right, then it means the same thing and be it’s it’s redundant. It’s superfluous here.” No, that’s not true. No.

The scriptures assert the truth of Jeremiah 31:3. The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, “Yay, I have loved thee with an everlasting love. Therefore, with loving kindness have I drawn thee.”

God, the great truth of foreknowledge is that before you were a glimmer in your parents eye, before this creation came into being, the Lord God of history set his particular affection, choice, love, knowledge in that sense upon you individually and on the basis of his deciding to choose you to be part of his bride to the exclusion of others. On that basis, you sit here today in the power of the Spirit listening to his word and responding to that word with the grace of God. That’s why you’re here is because before the foundation of the world, God knew you personally and loved you and chose you.

I should have mentioned before: the word know in the Old Testament is the same word that’s used of a man knowing his wife or a woman knowing her husband. It refers to love. It refers to covenantal intimacy and God has covenantal intimacy with those that he has sovereignly chosen for his good pleasure, not on the basis of who we are from before the beginning of time.

Now, that’s a tremendous truth that doesn’t build up pride. Calvinism doesn’t build up pride in the believer. It builds a sense of humility and understanding that there was nothing we did that God saw that could have merited this. It was his sovereign pleasure. He chose us and he formed us and he made us on the basis of that sovereign choice.

Calvin goes on that talked about who he selects. What does he select the Son to? Well, the chain goes on to say that these saints are predestinated. He also did predestinate these who he foreknew to be conformed to the image of the Son that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Ephesians 1 verse 5. We read that he having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will to the praise of the glory of his grace wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved. Parallel text shows us that the God’s predestination is first of all to himself adoption to himself according to the good pleasure of his will and that is a third reiteration of God’s sovereignty and predestination to the praise, to the glory not of us who chose but to the praise, to the glory of his grace.

God’s predestination is a work that he has solely brought to pass on the basis of his foreknowledge or forchoice of some particular people.

The predestination that’s spoken of here is a predestination to a particular end of the end. The text tells us what that end is. We’re predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. And the purpose of that conformity is that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. So God has set his love upon us and then in that love has chosen us for a particular destination and that destination is conformity to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And then as the chain goes on—well I have let’s see—had a couple of quotes here I wanted to read about predestination. Yeah, this I’ve already said: one is the choice of the persons, the other is the destination for whom those persons are to be accomplished.

And yeah I want—I missed over one point on my outline. Sorry about that. The foundation, yeah, on your outline you’ll see there that I say the foundation of predestination is the Lord Jesus Christ. The object of predestination is dead men. Okay. The foundation of the predestination is Christ. The object of those whom he predestined are dead men. It’s those men who are dead in their trespasses and sins when he predestinates us to be quickened to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The blessing of predestination is salvation. The means that the text goes on to tell us about predestination is God’s calling and justification. And the final end is not the glory of man or the well-being of man. The final end of predestination is the glory of God himself. That portion of your outline came from commentary in the book of Romans. Haldane preached through Romans and affected a great reformation in his time by emphasizing truths once more of sovereign grace. So I wanted to throw that into the outline and kind of help you to see a little bit of how this flows through the idea of predestination moving us from dead men through call and justification to the end that God might be glorified.

The text goes on to say that those whom he foreloved men then or chose particularly and he predestined to a particular end.