Geisler argues that the reformed fork in the river leads (when held consistently) to the following bad consequences

Transcription

1 Electing Love: the Fount of Every Blessing (Rom 8.29a) WestminsterReformedChurch.org Pastor Ostella August 6, 2017 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Rom ) Introduction In Romans 8.29, Paul gives a confirmation of God's providential care taught in Providence, you will recall, is presented as a comfort in the context of our sins, weaknesses, and sufferings. To the help of the Spirit (developed in ), Paul adds the comfort of We should not lose sight of the profound fact that God is working all things, including suffering, for our ultimate, permanent, and glorious good. 1 Moving forward into verse 29, Paul makes it clear that divine control of all that happens in the world (providence) is possible, not only because God is all powerful, but also because it rests solidly on the foundation of His wise plan of all things; he thus expands on purpose in As Ephesians 1.11 puts it, God works all things according to the counsel of his will. Here in Romans, Paul gives us a closer look at God s purpose when he explains that the resurrection glory of the children of God (8.11, 23) and their ultimate, highest, eternal good (8.28) involves conformity to the image of Christ in His family of brothers and sisters (8.29): For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Interestingly, Paul puts predestination, calling, justification, and glorification (in 29-30) on the foundation of foreknowledge. So, we can affirm that the golden chain of God s saving grace- that is planned before creation and providentially realized through all time- rests on His foreknowledge. Therefore, everything depends on the meaning of foreknew. Understanding this word in this context is critical. Different definitions of foreknowledge result in extremely different worlds of thought that affect numerous other things, both doctrinal and practical. This is radically important! The river of orthodox Christian theology hits this land mass and divides to never meet again. Foreknew has numerous interconnections; discussion of it yields a fork in the road in theology and in practical life; it is a watershed; a great divide. 2 Accordingly, we must spend some time on the term foreknew to show that it refers to love that makes a difference between fallen 1 As Warfield says: everything that befalls us is so governed that it, everything, is for our good and befalls us only because it is for our good (Faith and life, ). Geisler argues that the reformed fork in the river leads (when held consistently) to the following bad consequences 2 (Chosen But Free, 1999, ): 1. Failing to take personal responsibility for our actions, 2. Blaming God for evil, 3. Laying the ground for universalism, 4. Undermining trust in the love of God, 5. Undermining the motivation for evangelism, and 6. Undermining the motivation for intercessory prayer. We may well wonder who he is talking about because, as I see it, he radically misrepresents the reformed position, but how he develops these perceived consequences begins to open the door to the differences of worldview proportions between those who do and do not take foreknew in Romans 8.29 to mean forelove.

2 !2 sinners, and this gives us the title: electing love: the fount of every blessing. 3 The outline for this morning covers the use of this word in the OT and then in the NT to finally focus on our text. 4 I. To foreknow in the OT The rich usage of know/foreknow refers to the idea of loving or knowing intimately. This does not exclude the thought of having information but it has the much richer meaning of intimate distinguishing and electing love. We get this meaning from use of know for marital love (Gen 4.1): Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived. The NAS, with less delicacy, translates knew as had relations with. Intimate love like that of a husband for his wife is how God knows His people (Ex 2.25, God looked on the Israelites and knew them). Electing love is expressed in God's knowledge of Abraham (Gen 18.19): where the KJV has I know him and the ESV has I have chosen him. God knew him with purpose, and thus chose him to be the father of Israel and the nations. The knowing brought this to pass. It is not simply grasping something about Abraham in the future. Thus, it means to set him apart and to distinguish him from all others; it is an intimate elective and exclusive knowing. The combination of love and election is evident in Amos 3:2 where we are told that God only knew Israel though He just listed His knowledge of the sins of the surrounding nations, and the sins of Israel (You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities). So, the only nation upon whom God set His intimate-knowing-love is Israel. This nation is thus chosen. Note the convergence of setting love upon and choosing. They are one and the same act. For God to set His love upon a nation in distinction from the other nations (you only) is to choose that nation in an act of love. Israel was a sinful people living among other sinful nations. But God loved her and not them. God's love was a discriminating act, a setting apart, an election. It is obviously gracious because of the prevalence of sin. From Deuteronomy we know that the reason God set His affection on and chose Israel is not her number (7:7) or righteousness (9:6) but because of His love (7:8). The loving election of Israel finds its cause in God Himself, in His love, and in nothing in man. God's intimate love is active; it is set upon particular undeserving people (Abraham, and Israel). God's love is elective, discriminating, and distinguishing. It is set upon some sinners and not upon other sinners. Knowing therefore has the rich meaning of electing love. What about foreknowing? Jeremiah combines the notion of "before" with knowing in this rich sense. Being known before he was born (foreknown) is parallel with his being set apart and appointed as a prophet (Jer 1.5): Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations. Therefore, as we would expect, known before or foreknown has the meaning of loving choice attached to it. Of course, God knows information about Jeremiah but there is no reason to limit the idea to this information. Something much deeper is going on since 3 I do not want to overstate this claim, as if it is more ultimate than the eternal covenant of redemption. It overlaps with the eternal covenant (Eph 1.4, we are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world) but it seems right to say that the agreement to give a people to Christ in the pactum salutis presupposes election because Jesus says to the Father (Jn 17.6): yours they were (by electing ownership) and you gave them to me (in our covenant agreement). Trying always to maintain an expository method of preaching, this search on usage in all of Scripture is doing 4 systematic theology and shows how necessary it is to exposition (theology, of course, that is itself exegetically based). However, systematic theology usually remains in the background as an essential part of the work of sermon preparation. We typically tap into this background after the sermon in our discussion time when we broaden our horizons. Obviously, this verges on topical preaching and shows that the lines between topical and expository preaching are not always easy to draw. I may wish to call this an exposition of the key word in a key text; but dominate is fact that the sermon seeks to expound on the doctrine of foreknowledge in all of Scripture. In other words, this is a systematic treatment of a topic. A characteristic of expository preaching is that it does not usually give expression to this background.

3 the knowing is stated to be before Jeremiah's birth. He is told of the time of God's knowing (before his birth) to show that nothing in his life conditioned God s action in any way. 5!3 II. To foreknow in the NT Foreknow is built on the word know, which commonly refers to grasping and understanding information. We are to grow in knowledge. That is basic. But what happens with the addition of a prefix (such as fore, before, or pre)? It can still have a common use as well. Foreknow has this informational meaning in two of the five places it occurs in the NT: Acts 26.5 and 2 Pet 3.176; the other places are Rom 8.29; 11.5, and 1 Pet 1.20; see the handout. In a crisis experienced by Paul, he said literally (Acts 26.5) they foreknew me for a long time. The point is that he was known before the crisis erupted (i.e. "they knew me beforehand ). This verse has nothing to do with pre-vision; it uses foreknew in a way we might not expect. It refers to a time in the past, a time before, at which time Paul was known to be a devote and active Pharisee. He was known before as a Pharisee. This is not looking into the future with preknowledge. There is also the general use of foreknow as pre-knowledge that does look into the future. For example, Peter speaks of foreknowing the work of people who distort Scripture (2 Pet 3.16: There are some things in them [in Paul s letters] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures). In 3.17, he tells us that having this knowledge about them helps us stand guard: You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability). Prevision of the future is not here. It is like saying that given human nature we know ahead of time that we need speeding laws in school zones. This use is informational not previsional. 7 Now let's consider the rich usage of foreknow in the NT in the three remaining passages we have not yet discussed (1 Pet. 1:20; Rom. 11:2; and Rom. 8:29). A. In 1 Peter 1:20 it is said of Jesus that He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you. Notice the double use of "before": He was "[be]-fore known before the creation." It is like the example with Paul. If we look back to a point in the past, at that point Paul was known and if we look back to a point in the past (before the past!) at that point Christ was known. But distinct from the case of Paul who was disliked (unloved), this reference to Christ is to be understood in a way similar to John 17.24, Father you loved me before the creation of the world. "He was known" is saying "He was loved." Chosen indicates that He was the object of God's loving choices in promoting His ultimate good. B. In Romans 11:2, evidence that God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew is found in the Elijah narrative about the remnant, chosen by grace (11.5). His people whom He foreknew are defined as the elect in contrast to the nonelect ( 11.7: What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened). At minimum, this passage indicates that 5 Those who oppose the interpretation I am giving of foreknow must cut the rich sense of knowing with love out of foreknow. This is precisely what Geisler does when he says that it is the extreme Calvinist who equates foreknowing and foreloving (70). Notably, this equation does not follow, he says, because foreknow is used in the NT in reference to advanced knowledge of events (as in the general use of 2 Pet 3.17). But it is a non sequitur (it does not follow) to conclude from the usage of a word in one text that that must be its meaning in all other texts. 6 Knowing information ahead of time pertains to knowing the future by God s promise of a new heavens and earth in 3.13 connected with our word in It also pertains to knowing what people will do in the future based on knowing human nature in 3.17; neither refers to prevision of the future. We can distinguish between simple informational foreknowledge and previsional foreknowledge though we may need some better distinguishing terms. The ideas overlap: the informational use is without prevision; the previsional use includes information and much 7 more. Geisler wrongly states that the reformed view does not include the much more (1999, 70); thus, he refutes a straw man on this point and on numerous other points in his presentation of the reformed view as extreme Calvinism.

4 !4 to be foreknown is to be elect. And when we see this in the backdrop of the OT rich usage (as in Jer 1.5), we have to take foreknew in the full sense of lovingly chosen (the opposite of rejected! hardened!). God's covenantal love for the children of Abraham is not set aside in the present time of their judgment. As it was in the OT, so it is in the NT, God s covenant love comes to realization in the remnant. In other words, His love is electing love. C. Romans 8.29 Many readers of the Bible want to find something in man that conditions God's sovereign acts. 8 A key verse for this view is Romans 8:29 (i.e. foreknew). Let s give a general then a specific response. 1. A general response It is an unbiblical understanding of the term foreknow to claim that we can be precise regarding the information known by God ahead of time. 9 As Longnecker puts it, the key is how man responds to God s offer. Those that God foreknew will respond in faith are the ones predestined, called, justified, and glorified. All these saving acts of God hinge on whether or not 8 The commentator Barclay (Letter to the Romans, 1957) says of 8.29 that the passage has been seriously mis-used by taking it as theology and applying the standards of cold logic to it, then it must mean that God chose some and did not choose others, that there is a strange and terrible selectiveness in the love of God. But if you come at the text thinking about your experience, then you will be convinced that the teaching here is that you had nothing to do with your salvation (119). Barclay discovers love in foreknew (versus Geisler) but reads it as ineffectual love because man can wreck God's plan by refusing His call. Thus, love woke within our hearts, as well as the conviction of sin, and forgiveness. He concludes: "All is of God. That is what Paul is thinking of here" (120). He grounds his conclusion in the fact that know and foreknow refer to God's love with a purpose and plan in which "God did everything" and "all is of God." He "marked us out for salvation... in due time His call came to us; but Paul knew that the pride of the heart of man can wreck the plan of God and the disobedience of the will of man can refuse the call (120). The unbiblical view I refer to interprets foreknow as a reference to foreseen faith (denied in WCF 3.5). This is a 9 prevalent view that, if adopted, yields a distinctive worldview and a distinctive view of saving grace. It is extremely important to figure out what to rule out and what to rule in regarding the term foreknew. Geisler s treatment of this text and subject (1999, 69-71) has three main claims: 1) if foreknow means forelove then foreknowledge would not include God s knowledge of how the elect would respond, which is an odd thought. Then he adds that if God does foreknow infallibly then He would have to decide whether He would have to force them to believe in Him or else elect them He knew could be persuaded to freely accept His grace (70). In italics is how election accords with foreknowing for Geisler. His understanding of foreknow is conditioned by his view of moral ability (2010, 182) that is countered in the WCF despite the fact that he confuses the Confession s denial of free will for man since the fall (WCF 9.3) and His use of uncoerced human choices in His providence (5.2). 2) He claims further that a word study on know and foreknow in the Bible shows a) that it does not mean choose because, he says, passages like Jer , Hos 13.5; Gen 18.18; Amos , show that a relationship is involve-not merely a choice but also a relationship set up by a choice (70). Of course, reformed writers do not speak of merely a choice but of a relationship set up by electing love (and thus a straw man). 3) Finally, in what he thinks is decisive, he cites one of the five occurrences of foreknow in the NT (2 Pet 3.17), one that shows human knowing in advance, to support the claim that the equating of foreknowing and foreloving does not follow (70).

5 !5 man will believe when offered the gospel. 10 However, 8.29 says nothing of foreseen faith, 11 nor does any Scripture speak of "foresight of a difference" (Murray) that God's sees will exist between people, and that conditions His actions. Instead, as we have seen God s foreknowledge makes the difference that exists between people. God s foreknowledge of Jeremiah (1.5) set him apart to be His prophet; it was far more than foresight that he would be a prophet; he was a prophet because of God s electing love, which made the difference. In Romans 11:5, God reserved the remnant making them different from those He hardened; this remnant is referred to as the elect and the people God foreknew; God's foreknowledge of them is realized in His separating them from Baal worshippers: He foreknew them, acted on their behalf, thereby made the difference between those who believed and those who did not believe. 2. To respond in specific We must consider the use of foreknow in the context of Romans What are some reasons for taking foreknew in this verse to mean foreloved? We must keep the fact in mind that general informational knowledge and prevision of faith are ruled out which already predisposes us to the richer meaning of foreknow. We need only add some reasons that rule forelove in. a) Love is definitely the flow of thought here. Romans 8:29 is presented as a basis that supports God's providential care in working all things for our good. Thus, if one is under God's providential care, 8.28, then that person is foreknown in the full outworking of love. Let's think of this another way. Foreknown confirms and explains being objects of God's love that promotes the greatest good of those loved. So we should conclude that foreloved in the rich OT sense of being known is what we have in Romans 8:29. b) The idea of selection or distinguishing love is found in the reference to "whom" in distinction from all others (v. 29). There are particular people that are foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. So it is natural to take foreknown in the rich sense found, as we have seen, in Romans 11.2 regarding the people whom he [God] foreknew who in 11.5 make up a remnant, chosen by grace. A key point to note is that it is not information about people that is foreknown; instead, people are foreknown. It is very different to say that Adam knew something about Eve and Adam knew Eve. It is quite bland to read of God's relation to Israel, the remnant, Abraham, Jeremiah, the righteous (He knows the way of the righteous) as telling us that God has information about them such as the fact that they will believe. Instead, the point is that God knows, cares, protects, 10 Longnecker, on Romans Similarly, Geisler claims that elect according to foreknowledge (Rom 8.29; 1 Pet 1.2) refers to the foreknowledge of faith. He claims precisely what the Confession denies when it says that election in Christ is without any foresight of faith (3.5). Geisler is critical of eisegesis, but he practices it himself here when he affirms here that election is according to foreseen faith, even though foreknowledge of faith is nowhere mentioned. Since faith, for Geisler, is the natural man s free act that is not something given to him, then the sinner s salvation depends on his decision to believe; that decision is a key link in the chain of salvation by grace. But then man s contribution to his salvation, his decision to accept Christ, is the weak link in the chain on which all else hangs including the ability of God to save. What Geisler does is a form of logical deduction within his system of what he thinks Scripture teaches, which is okay as long as we do justice to the texts that support the system. It is important to seek good and necessary consequence within particular texts as we understand them. That is where healthy debate ought to occur, on the details of exegesis in context. It is unwarranted and arbitrary to say that since the text mentions justification, which is by faith, then what is 11 precisely in view is foreknowledge of the faith that justifies. This is cherry picking. Why select this information as that which is precisely known by God in advance (to be sure, He knows who will believe)? Calling is known in advance, then why not argue that foreknown in 8.29 refers to God's foresight of His efficacious call of them savingly to Himself, the call that lovingly introduces Himself to them by making the light of the gospel shine in their hearts renewing them? Why not make calling the precise thing foreknown about these people? Answer: it is arbitrary to select any information about these people and make it the object foreknown (whether God's efficacious call, their faith, or even their faithfulness which is necessary to their sanctification and glorification). Therefore, the foreseen faith view is unbiblical, however prevalent it may be.

6 !6 guides the way of the righteous, i.e. He loves the righteous. Likewise, when we come to Romans 8, it is quite bland to restrict our thoughts to a prevision of facts about people. This is especially true when the text draws attention to the persons whom God foreknew and says nothing regarding information about them. Facts are known (in the informational sense) but people are loved. To be sure, God knows all people, events, and things and He knows them all beforehand. But nothing specific of what God knows about the remnant is stated. More importantly, nothing is said here regarding something that God knows and that conditions what He ordains (that conditions His sovereign acts). Why He does what He does in electing love is found in Himself and in nothing in man. Concluding applications on foreknew in ) First, foreknew shows that love must be defined by election. Foreknown here in Romans 8:29 refers to God's electing love. Love is the fundamental theme in the presentation of election in this text in the language of foreknowledge. Thus, God s love must be defined by including the necessary ingredient of election. In turn, it is an unbiblical view of God's love to remove sovereign, efficacious, and unconditional election from it. God's love for undeserving sinners is such that He chooses Israel out from the nations, He chooses Israel within Israel (Deut. 7:6-8 and Rom. 9:6-13), and He chooses the new Israel, forming the church, those called out (1 Pet 2.9, But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light). God is like a husband to Israel and He thus chose her and treasured her exclusively in distinction from the other nations. This informs us of the meaning of God's elective and exclusive love of the remnant within Israel and of the elect remnant today from the among nations (Rom ). Thus, foreknew is a rich term that deepens our grasp of God s love by the reality of election. 2) Second, foreknew here shows that election must be defined by love To properly understand election, we must recognize that it is actually, essentially, about love. Just consider that for Jesus to be chosen means that He is precious to the Father, chosen and precious according to 1 Peter 2.4. Peter also says, He was foreknown, foreloved, loved before the foundation of the world and from this love within the Holy Trinity flowed His precious blood for your sake who through him are believers (1 Pet : you were ransomed with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. As the elect of God, Jesus was loved before the world began and therefore was made manifest in history for the sake of those not who believe in Him but who have faith through Him; this refers to His efficacious call that conforms to His eternal purpose of electing love. Election can sound harsh if it is truncated to a blunt selection. Opponents of sovereign election caricature the doctrine in this way and thereby put it in its worst light. 12 We must maintain the warmth of election by noting how inseparable it is from God's love. God chooses in love, His choice is loving, His love is elective. Being chosen we are choice, treasured, precious and like Christ, we are the objects of His choices for our greatest good. We must not lose this in the debates over sovereign election. When the charge is raised that election is arbitrary, a good answer is "no, my friend, election is an act of love, God's love manifests itself in election." When it is claimed that sovereign unconditional election cannot be true because it is based on 12 As in the article by Coljin on tables of straw.

7 !7 foreknowledge, we need to say, "foreknowledge is electing love, the appeal to foreknowledge strengthens the case for sovereign election. It is why we must believe in sovereign election." Consider the flavor of being known (Gal 4.9): to now that you know God, Paul adds, or rather are known by God. He is saying that you are set apart by God's electing love that affectionately embraces you! And this puts your knowing Him into proper perspective. Also, in Colossians 3.12, Paul combines chosen, dearly loved, and set apart: Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. The term foreknew simply summarizes all of this in one word. You are God s elect, set apart and beloved. 13 Of course, God s omniscience is presupposed in His forelove. God knows lovingly; knows all about us including all our sins and He knows them ahead of time, before we do them (as He knows our thoughts afar off when they are being formed in our hearts, Ps 139). So, He knows us with electing love, and chooses us unto salvation, despite our sinfulness. We are chosen to be saved from our sinfulness; our sins are presupposed in His election. It is therefore gracious and loving. Foreknew is the hinge that tells us that love is the theme carried forward from Romans 8.28 into verses From foreknew we learn that what is discussed in 8.28 is the outworking of electing love. Thus as a transitional term in the move from 8.28 to 29-30, the use of the term foreknew tells us that providence (v. 28), as manifestation of God's electing love, is therefore a manifestation of how precious, treasured, distinguished, set apart and loved you and I are as the people of God for whom Jesus died and for whom He was raised from the dead. In other words, electing love/loving election is the fount of every blessing promised to us in Romans It is astounding! The good that comes to us flows from the fountain of affection and delight that has been set upon us from before the foundation of the world. Election is about love in the full definition of love that does the greatest good for those loved. Love promotes the good, the saving and eternal good by a personal engagement of all the willpower, determination, persistence of the triune God in accord with the eternal covenant in perfect holiness, wisdom, justice, and truth. The good is all the good that is for believers that the book of Romans lays before us in the justifying and sanctifying of underserving sinners by grace through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ. It it the good of union with the risen Lord in His work both now and not yet so that He is with us on our journey through life at every step until we safely reach the Promised Land in the heavenly Canaan and the fullness of eternal life in a restored creation. In giving a comfort for us in suffering we thought Paul reached a high point in Romans 8.28 but to our pleasant surprise he reaches even higher to the heavenly fount from which Romans 8.28 flows: the distinguishing, electing, saving love of God. Let us fall down before the majesty of God our Father in full recognition of our utter dependence upon the work of Christ applied by the Holy Spirit, a work that was planned before time in the ever flowing fountain of love and that is fulfilled by the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those owned by the Father and given to Christ in the eternal covenant of redemption; to the triune God be glory, praise, and honor now and forevermore, amen. 13 But then do we hold that God loves all men? We have to distinguish between God's common and His special or saving love. He loves all in the sense that He sends the rain and sunshine upon all, in the sense that He invites all to the gospel feast, and in the sense that He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked in and of itself. But He does not love all with a saving/electing love. This love saves all upon whom it is bestowed.