Kind Father, gracious and merciful
to us through Christ, Your beloved Son, we thank You this evening
that we're able to gather in this place, open up this blessed,
inspired book, and consider a passage of it. We pray that You may open
our heart and our understanding. We pray the Spirit of grace might
help us, Lord, to comprehend the things that are before us,
and that we might see and agree with the Word of our Lord. Father,
we ask You to bless those sick and weak, sorrowful and troubled. May Your grace be sufficient. May Your peace be bestowed in
a way undeniable. We ask these things in the name
of Christ, we pray. Amen. Alright, Romans chapter
8, verse 28 and 29, the subject, divine foreknowledge. We know
that all things work together for good to them that love God,
to them who are the called according to 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. While we're
at it, let's add verse 30, Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them
he also called. Whom he called them he also justified,
and whom he justified them he also glorified. But we're interested
in divine foreknowledge. Verse 29, Whom he did foreknow,
he also did predestinate. You are aware that there are
great contentions in Christendom about this doctrine and others,
what we call the doctrines of grace, or Calvinism, as held
by the Armenians, who hold a completely different view altogether of
all of these great doctrines. Thus are there diverse views
on the subject of divine foreknowledge, views that are worlds apart. sovereign grace believer and
an Arminian set down together, apart so that they cannot seemingly
be ever reconciled together. A. W. Pink, introducing his book
on the subject of the attributes of God, had this to say, what
controversies have been engendered by these things in the course
of history? Then he adds, of course, that
all great Bible doctrines have also set off theological battles
between different sections of Christendom. Now let me illustrate
concerning divine foreknowledge. Suppose the question was put
to people, suppose we were to put the question to people including
preachers and teachers as well as those that are faithful in
church and claim to read their Bible. to question what is the
meaning of foreknowledge? What is meant when the Bible
speaks of the foreknowledge of God? And such as Jeremiah 1 and
5, Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee. Or Romans 8,
29, Whom the Lord did foreknow. Or 1 Peter 1, 1 and 2, Elect
according to the foreknowledge of God. Now that question being
put, the standard answer would be, or might be, it only means
to know ahead of time. All it means is that God knows
ahead of time what men will do. They say it means to have prior
knowledge of what people will do during their life upon the
earth. And so, the meaning therefore,
by them and by that explanation, would be limited to simple cognition. That is, God has a knowledge
of this or that. They would say, God, because
He is great and because He is all-powerful, He therefore has
all knowledge and is able to look down through the corridors
of time and see and know what a particular person will do,
when they will be born, where they will be born, whether they
be male or female, and whether or not they will believe on Christ
or remain an unbeliever. Now, this description satisfies
most of them. That is, it will satisfy almost
any Arminian, for their ignorance of the attributes of God is great,
and they have no conception of the majesty of the divine perfections
and the attributes of our God. To others, the same view contents
them. For it is used to subvert the
absolute sovereignty of God. For they imagine that they have
by this found a way to harmonize free will and divine foreknowledge,
so that they are not at variance. They say, God looked down, God
looked at our life through the corridors of history, and He
saw what each of us would do And he chose those that he saw
would choose Christ in the end. Thus foreknowledge has been outrightly
denied and grossly perverted by the Arminians. But perverted
and twisted by giving it another meaning. So in the final end,
when they are through explaining foreknowledge, It is, as John
Owen said, no more than a conjectural foreknowledge of what is to come,
not founded upon his own unchangeable purpose, but upon a guess at
the free inclination of men's wills." Now, it cannot be denied
that God knows all things. It cannot be denied, but that
God knows all things that are possible to know. Nothing is
unknown to God. Nothing there is that is unknown
unto God. Nothing that we will do or we
can do or we should do that is unknown to God. What every creature
will do, every thought that will come into our mind, every move
and every action is known by the great knowledge of God our
Father. But this all-encompassing knowledge
of God is not our present subject. We're not speaking on the fact
that God knows all things that there is to know. We don't deny
that, for it certainly is true. But we want this afternoon to
look at the foreknowledge of God as it connects and as it
concerns salvation. Let's begin with a text that
I have already mentioned in your hearing, Jeremiah chapter 1 and
verse 4 and 5. Now, Jeremiah appeared as a prophet
of God among the people. He appeared when they were spiritually
corrupt and apostasy was far advanced. And when the book of
the law had been lost for some time, 2 Kings 22 and verse 8,
he appeared when religion was greatly declined among the people
of God. He declares his calling, how
he came to be a prophet, the revelation that God had made
unto him. In verse 4, Jeremiah 1, The word
of the Lord came unto me, saying..." He declares that his becoming
a prophet was not his own doing or his own choosing. It was not
a vocation that he sought out as suitable for him. God had
a sovereign hand in his ministry. For the record, the Lord in this,
verse 5, said this, I formed you in the womb, I knew you. And before you came forth out
in birth, I sanctified you, I ordained thee a prophet unto the nation."
By the way, this would make a great text, would it not, against abortion? And people who say, well, they're
not really persons until they're born in such light. But here's
a great text that God knows us and has His eye upon us before
we are ever born. Now the question is here, what
is the extent of this knowing that God is said to have concerning
Jeremiah? I knew you. And also, when was
the time of this knowing? Look at it, it says before. The
time was before I formed you in the belly, I knew you. As Calvin said, the word for
belly is not the word for womb in the first instance, but later
in the sentence it certainly is. Now there are two sentences
here that make up the fifth verse if we will look at them. Number
one, before I formed you, I knew you. Now this shows that God
is the creator and the giver of physical life, that He knows
everyone in that way. Secondly, before you came out
of the womb, which is saying the same thing as before you
were ever born, before you ever saw the light of day, I formed
thee from the foundation of the world. I knew thee and I ordained
thee a prophet unto the nation. Now see the undeniable truth
that is set forth in this verse. First of all, twice, before I
formed you inside, before you came forth, before you were born,
before you were conceived, and before you came forth in birth. Secondly, then notice three specified
things concerning Jeremiah which were prior unto his being born. A. I knew you. I sanctified you,
see, I ordained you a prophet unto the nation." By the way,
if you are thinking ahead, consider two points. Number one, this does not put
the prophet in the same category with John the Baptist who was,
Luke 1 and 15, filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's
womb. and gave evidences of it in particular
ways as seen in Luke chapter 1 and verse 41. But secondly,
it much resembles what Paul declares to be in his very own case. In Galatians chapter 1 and verse
15 and verse 16, he said this concerning his entering into
the ministry or becoming a Christian, Entering into the ministry, he
said, God separated me from my mother's womb and called me by
His grace to reveal His Son in me that I might preach Him among
the heathen. Now concerning Jeremiah's claim,
and with its last gasping, dying breath, Arminians in their freewillism
will cry out from its very deathbed, They will say the text respects
only His service as a prophet and has nothing to do with His
salvation whatsoever. This is the same thing many of
them do in Romans 9 when they are pinched by the sovereignty
of God. I would answer, pray tell, how
in the world does His service as a prophet of God Can it be
separated from regeneration and His being a child of God and
a believer? Paul is clear. He separated me
from my mother's womb and He called me by His grace. He ordained me before I was ever
born. And besides, as we will soon
show, the word knew you is used in a special sense. more than
you might think about as you read the Scripture. I knew you
would be born. I knew you would be a man-child.
I knew you would be a prophet. It's more than that. It's the
ordination of God that is behind it, Gil said, not merely by omniscience. Not by the fact simply that God
is able to see all things before they occur, but that such knowing
is not merely knowing ahead of time, but that it is actually,
both in Jeremiah and in Paul's case, it is put for a special
work of God before the person was ever born. Again, when our
minions are greatly pinched with that text such as Jeremiah 1
and verse 5, or the claim of Paul, their only admission is
that, well, this is a special, extraordinary, out-of-the-common
experience. Some special servant, they might
say, like Jeremiah and Paul. Not a thing common to all the
saints of God, they would argue. They would say only certain persons
and only certain events and only certain things or the sovereign,
immutable work of God. This they have to admit in order
to deny the other. Thus, let us come to the New
Testament, where the doctrine of divine foreknowledge is set
forth in connection with God's eternal purpose and with the
salvation of His elect. First, let's enter some New Testament
texts Let's just read them and enter them into the record, which
speak of divine foreknowledge so that we understand that it
is a New Testament doctrine as well. 1 Peter chapter 1 and verse
2. Listen to this. Elect according
to the foreknowledge of God the Father. The text we read in Romans
8 and verse 29. Whom he did foreknow, he also
did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. Now again, those that oppose
divine sovereignty, who reject divine foreknowledge as they
are set out in the Scripture, since they cannot deny that such
terms are used in the Scripture, this tactic is not to outrightly
deny foreknowledge, but to change its meaning to twist it and pervert
it to having another meaning. That election is not based, they
say, only upon some sovereign and immutable purpose, is not
immutably fixed by a sovereign fiat of God before the world
began, but that God chose those whom he foresaw would believe
the gospel, thus making that foresight the cause of his choosing
them. But it is by their own free choice
and will that they are seen receiving Christ in the Arminian description,
and therefore they say that is the meaning of foreknowledge.
Now, foreknowledge means before, does it not? It cannot mean after
they have been saved. They are predestinated to go
to heaven and be conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, if God knew them after they
had believed, it would be post-destination and not predestination. Besides,
a salvation based upon foreseen good works is the same as salvation
based upon actual work. We would then apply this contingent
foreknowledge to the reprobate. Is the reason that God determines
to damn some because he looked ahead and saw them rejecting
the Lord and living an ungodly, unbelieving life all of their
days? For instance, in refuting Arminianism
as, oh, in reason, at the first God willed, that all be saved
on the condition that they believe. This is the Arminian view. And
foreseeing them believing, God then chooses them based upon
having foreseen and foreknown their faith, not based upon divine
sovereignty. That's the Arminian's argument.
But since God must not change them by any act of irresistible
efficacy like He did Saul, this is the Arminian's argument too,
Then the hard changing must be done upon their own, and their
final impenitency then is also left upon their own head. He
resolves to destroy them because they have basically destroyed
themselves. Now what is this, as Owen asks,
but to have God to guess at the free inclination of men's so-called
free will? that such men are able to deceive
His expectation." That cannot be that any deceive the will
or the purpose or the expectation of God. Now let's go to 1 Peter
1, verses 1 and 2, where the apostle is writing to some. Just
notice what he calls them. He calls them pilgrims. He calls
them strangers. He calls them sojourners. He calls them the scattered or
the dispersed ones. But he identifies them in another
way as elect according to the foreknowledge of God. See how these two great doctrines
mesh themselves together. Election or elect, meaning chosen. For electos has the meaning of
to choose out from a number, or choose out from a great number,
to make a choice. They are chosen in Christ before
the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1, 4 and 5. In fact,
the saints are more often called the elect than they are called
Christians in the New Testament in Scripture. But why many texts
simply use the elect? Peter adds something else. Elect
according to the foreknowledge of God. It bears its fruit in
the foreknowledge of God, in and through sanctification of
the spirit and obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus
Christ. But our men and our free willers,
universalists, will not put up with such and will throw up a
very loud howl. If they take this verse to merely
say, God chose those who He looked ahead and saw would believe upon
Him. Now to refute the notion that
they are only elect because God foresaw them as believing, let's
shift our focus for a moment to a grand text in Acts chapter
2 verse 22 and 23, this time with foreknowledge in regard
to the Lord Jesus Christ. This is part of Peter's Pentecostal
sermon in the hearing of the Jews. And he said in verse 23,
Acts 2, Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God, you have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and
slain. Notice again, he ties together
the two things. Determinate counsel and for knowledge
of God. These are inseparably annexed
together in this particular place. Literally, the fixed counsel
for the word determinant, this is the only time the Greek word
is translated determinant in the New Testament, but it is
the word horizo, And it means to set bounds. It means to mark
out. It means to appoint. It means
that which has been fixed or which has been absolutely determined. The same word rendered determinate
in Acts 2 and verse 22 and 23 is in Luke chapter 22 and verse
22, Acts 11-29, Acts 17 and verse 26. And there it is ordained. It is ordained. It is translated. Now, the determinant counsel
and the foreknowledge are not exactly the same. Thus, Peter
mentions both of them. Now, the question is, is there
any way that is consistent with honesty that one could actually
say of God's foreknowledge in regard to the death of Christ
as they do to human beings? and to the saints of God, that
the foreknowledge of God with regard to Christ's death upon
the cross? Could they say that God simply
looked ahead, looked down through the corridors of time, saw that
men would crucify His Son upon the cross, and so foreseeing
that they would crucify His only Son, God ordained Him to be crucified? That's a stupid argument. Is
it not in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ? God saw all the
way to Calvary. And He foreknew what they would
do to His Son. So based upon that, the Arminian
for consistency has to say, this is the foreknowledge in regard
to Christ. But this is a dishonest use and
interpretation and application of foreknowledge. Now, the same
thing. with making God's action to the elect dependent or contingent
upon what He sees them doing in regard to Christ and the gospel,
and then choosing those that He foresaw and foreknew would
believe upon His Son, and calling this election." This is their
view of election. Now, let's switch our focus to
the text. in Romans 8, 28-30, especially
to consider how Paul uses foreknowledge. Now his words are concerning
verse 28, them who love God, them who are called according
to purpose. Them, of verse 28, become whom,
of verse 29 and verse 30. So look at the words. Whom he
did foreknow. And some points concerning this
phrase are expression. Number one, whom. As A.W. Pink wrote in an article on the
foreknowledge of God published years ago, it never applies to
the acts of people in the New Testament. You look at the word
foreknowledge and search it out, you'll see that it never refers
to the acts of people. It is not what God did foreknow,
it is whom God did foreknow in the New Testament. It is person. It is not their acts that is
said to be the object of God's foreknowledge, though He knows
all of their acts as well, for He is indeed an all-knowing God. Second, whom He did foreknow. Now there is a distinction made
by the word whom here. A great distinction as seen in
other texts as well. Proverbs 3 and 2, for example.
Hebrews 12 and 6. Whom the Lord loves. Whom the Lord loves. There is
a great distinction. Romans 9, 18. Whom He will, He
has mercy. Whom He will, He hardens. There is distinction here. Whom
in particular, meaning those, are as many as the ones to whom
such is the case by the sovereignty of God. Thirdly, we notice, Whom
He did foreknow. And this is a very important
and determining point. That being, that after the words,
Whom He did foreknow, there is not what Shedd called any qualifying
adjunct at all. There is nothing to qualify it. In the sentence, the verb foreknow
has as its object whom. Whom God did foreknow. And there
is nothing added to qualify the foreknow. Simply put, there is
no special distinction in regard to this foreknowledge. So, it
is not whom God foreknew would believe and would repent. It
is not whom God saw doing this or that or the other. It is not
whom God saw being obedient unto the faith. It is not whom God
saw that would submit themselves unto regeneration and the new
birth. Nothing to qualify that at all.
For if the apostle had in mind something to qualify the foreknowledge,
It were a simple matter for him to add it in and throw it in
the tank. And in no other place does he
put any contingence upon the foreknowledge of God. And in
the absence of such, it is clear that the apostle has in mind
persons and not their action whom he did foreknow. One writer
said something I like, that it is a futile piece of cunning
to lay hold on the term foreknowledge and use it to pin election upon
the merits of men." Not even their love of God, for they love
God not on their own, but by the work of God's grace within
them. Paul sees further in Romans 8,
29, whom he did foreknow, watch this, He also did predestinate. Now let's get it straight. Not
whom he saw would believe or repent or go to church or trust
or read the Bible or go to church and trust the Lord. No, it's
not that. Whom he did foreknow, he did
predestinate. That the foreknowing is first. It's first. It goes ahead of
the other. whom He did foreknow, He also
did predestinate, not the other way around. And note the high
destiny to which they are ordained, to be conformed to the image
of His blessed Son. Thus there is progression here.
Whom He did foreknow, them He also did mark out for a most
special privilege. Thus as Murray and others have
said and given their assent, Forno declares the special love
of God which in election and adoption is set upon those who
will be called in accordance with the divine purpose of God. It does set forth a wonderful
end to which they have been marked out, and that is to bear the
image of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So, he did foreknow,
he also did predestinate. Not only that, but he called
and he justified. All of those are in the past
tense, or the Eroist tense, as we would say in the Greek. Thus,
the Arminian view must fall under the ground that foreknowledge
is only God's knowledge of what each person will do. For the
text tells that God's will that God will do such in those whom
He did foreknow, for such foreknowledge will lead to final glorification."
Whom God foreknew before the foundation of the world. Let's contrast a couple of scriptures
which speak of God's knowledge that the meaning must be clear. First of all, that word to Israel
found in one of the minor prophets, Amos, And it's in chapter 3 and
verse 2. Listen as he says, You only have
I known of all of the families of the earth. Now this gives
as the reason that God would chasten them. It is clear the
word know cannot mean bare knowledge, for God knows all there is to
know. He knew every nation. He knew
every king. He knew all about them. He knew
every idolatrous act. Therefore, His knowing them only
is His favoring them with a special adoption and to be His special
people and peculiar people. This is the knowledge of which
the prophet speaks. You only have I known of all
the families of the earth. And then secondly, that passage
in Matthew 7 and verse 21 through 23. of false prophets who will
drag their merit even to the judgment seat, if it were possible,
who will protest even to the great day. Lord, Lord, did we
not do this and that? Verse 23, Then will I profess
unto them, Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never
knew you. Now this ought to settle the
matter forever. It is not naked knowledge, for
he knows all with his omniscience. But he never knew them as his
own. He never knew them as his people,
as his chosen, as his subject, as his saints, and such like.
Therefore, as being true servants, or as my sheep, he never knew
them." Now that's an important text, and I think it ought to
carry much grace. Never were they in grace, never
a child of God. I never at any time knew you
as a servant or as a child of grace. Now these were not such
as had once had grace, been saved, and then lost it because our
Lord would not say, I never knew you. It would be, I knew you
at one time. But our Lord says, I never knew
you. Therefore, they never were Christians,
and they never were Christians at any time. So we conclude,
foreknowledge is a companion of electing grace. It is God in election foreknowing
those that He has chosen. It is His adoption. He fixes
His love upon these before they are born, and yea, even before
time. Thus, before they were born,
He knew them, but not all whom He did foreknow. In that sense,
in seeing them existing, are children of God. But whom He
did foreknow in this way, according to His purpose, He also did predestinate
to be conformed to the image of His Son. Thus, divine foreknowledge
is a great comfort to the children of God when we properly understand
it and rightly divide it. Thank you, and let's bow together
for a word of prayer, please.