Matt Chandler on Foreknowledge and Predestination

Hello and welcome back to Sociology 101. Today we're going to look at the doctrines of God's foreknowledge and predestination by interacting with a sermon delivered by Matt Chandler at the Marks 9, excuse me, conference there at southeastern a couple of years ago. And many of you know, I am friends with Matt and have a lot of respect for him. This is not to disrespect him personally, obviously just like my other critiques with Piper and Greer and Keller and all the other Calvinists. I have a huge amount of respect but I just simply disagree and I could do so without being disagreeable. So I say these things in genuine love and respect for this pastor but at the same time just disagreeing with his interpretation of these particular passages. And so let's listen in to Matt Chandler in his sermon here about foreknowledge and predestination. And so what I've learned about those who struggle with these two things foreknowledge and predestination is a lot of times they'll play one of two games. The first game is to go well you know I see that you know I see foreknowledge and predestination about I just don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Like I know he said foreknowledge but what I think he means is and I know he said predestined to determine beforehand but what I think he means and so I always just want to have if you read the book does the apostle Paul come off like a god who uses slang does he like if Paul calls you a fool that's not and that's not like yours boy what's up fool all right that's not he's calling you a fool all right it's not slang he thinks you're a fool all right and and when he calls the the teachers in the churches of Galatia those dogs he's not saying those were his friends all right Paul doesn't use slang so when he says those whom he forenew he predestined he means that those whom got forenew got predestined and and so that that's the first game and then this okay first of all and he's a funny comedic a comedic type of preacher I mean that's one of the reasons he's so well-known is not only Yoast Deep but he's also funny I listened to Matt you know growing up in college and he spoke at the the ministry we're part of and he's always cracking you know hilarious jokes and making fun of stuff and it's just that's his nature natural way of speaking and he's really good at that but in doing so he kind of criticizes those who would be opponents to the Calvinistic interpretation that he's about to offer and of course opponents to the Calvinistic interpretation aren't quote unquote playing games we are just as serious as he is about our interpretations of these texts so I would I would critique that I would also say we we don't believe that Paul is using slang either in other words our definition and understanding of the word foreknowledge and predestination are legitimately established historically as well as exegetically and and seen in other writings as well and as supported even by extra other text other biblical texts that are used these terms in the same way as I'll look at here in just a minute and so I want you to understand that sometimes Calvinist have a really win some way of dismissing the other view the the opponents view as not very scholarly or just a game or just not worthy of your consideration and it has to be the way we look at it versus trying to be more objective in saying okay here is how scholars have interpreted and debated over these perspectives for generations and here are two possible ways in which you could understand this text that's what we have to do if we're going to be good Bereans if we're going to be students of the word we need to fully vet our opponents perspective and do so fairly and of course this is just a sermon surrounded in a Calvinistic organization and a conference here at southeastern and nine marks it's a bunch of Calvinists I mean so he didn't feel like I think he has to do due diligence to represent those who oppose his particular interpretation with any kind of depth but that's why I'm here you know to help balance that out hopefully in a respectful way and so I want you to go and listen to Matt and how he does go on to interpret his passage before we dive into some alternative ways in which scholars have interpreted Romans 828 and following and to understand it better from both perspectives let's let's listen in the second game is that that people will say people say well on for knowledge and predestination what what's happened is that that God is so all knowing that that God knows who's going to take their faith and put it in his grace and since he knows who's going to choose him or he knows who who's going to look back and you know and say I'm going to take my faith and I'm going to put it in God's grace that that's how this thing works now what's the big problem with that well the big problem came out of Ephesians 2 yesterday didn't it that the faith to believe in the grace is also a gift of God not by men so that no one would boast so that the idea that God somehow has got in the delorean adjusted the flux capacitor jetted forward and figured out who else going to pick him and who's going to take their faith and put it in the grace he's provided and then you know went back before the beginning of the foundation the earth was laid and wrote that in the lambs book of life and shut it down let's get to work now press play that that idea is shattered on the rock of Ephesians chapter 2 verse 8 when it says by grace you have been saved through faith and this Danny says both grace and faith this faith to believe in that grace was given to you by God it is not yours so that you would have nothing to boast in and so I've had people go that's not true pastor okay time out all right several things there um one he he criticizes using again kind of joking and mocking the the foresight faith you the simple foresight faith you God with a delorean um travels into time and sees who's going to to choose him and and therefore chooses that person um no scholar worth their salt um makes those kinds of arguments but instead for example dr. Brian Abishano and others that hold to the more corporate view of election perspective might say that um god forenose in a sense that the elect one who is christ he forenose all those who would be in Christ by faith in other words they freely believe in other words it's their choice to believe or not to believe but god forenose um what will come of all who do believe whether Jew or Gentile and so this this concept of foreknowledge is a concept of god foreknowing and even pre-planning in a sense what will come of whosoever is in Christ freely in other words they they still have a free decision as to whether to be in Christ or not to be in Christ but god has fore ordained or pre-planned based upon his his foreknowledge of what will come of all who do believe in him freely and so that that's a more rational way of explaining it I guess from another perspective um and I'll give you even a further um different perspective that I take on Romans chapter eight here in just a minute through an article that I wrote on sutriology 101 but before we go there I also want to address his Ephesians chapter two passage that I've addressed in other episodes but just real quickly right here um I just want to make the comment that what he refers to as faith as being a gift of god um we've talked about before how the Greek actually shows that this being um neuter versus feminine as its reference reference back to faith was actually even by Calvin's own admission and um exegesis of this passage is referring back to salvation as a whole not to faith in specific now that being said I have no qualm whatsoever saying that faith is a gift of god in general just because I don't have to assume that faith has to be given effectually or irresistibly in order for it to be considered a gift of god in other words if I were to say uh repentance has been granted to you or our faith has been granted to you or um uh this this salvation has been granted to you what do I mean by that well as a non-Calvinist I would mean well god has granted the means by which you may believe or you may repent um and so when the Bible says something for example like it does in Romans chapter one verse 16 and following that the gospel is the power of god unto salvation first to the Jew and then to the Gentile what I hear that saying is that god has sent the message of the gospel first to the Jew thus granting them repentance granting them faith granting them the message by which they too may believe faith comeeth by hearing and so how do you grant somebody faith you send them the message how will they believe in one of them they've not heard you send them the message by which they may believe in him and so you're granting somebody faith by granting them the capacity or the grace needed to believe and you do that by granting them revelation bringing light of revelation so the gospel the appeal of god to be reconciled through Christ was sent first to the Jew and then it was sent to the Gentile thus granting or enabling those who hear it to believe in it so I have no problem whatsoever saying that faith is a gift of god in so much as god is the one who gives us the capacity to to hear understand and reply but that we're still responsible as to how we use the gifts that he's given us for example he may have given you a great gift to speak as a communicator Now, is it your choice or your responsibility as to whether you use your gift of speaking and communicating for God's glory or not? Of course it is, but you wouldn't say that it's not a gift of God, would you? It's a gift of God, whether you choose to use it, whether you take advantage of the gift he's given you or he hasn't, and everyone has been granted the sufficient revelation by which they may believe so as to receive more light of his revelations. That's why Paul says that all stand without excuse. All men have what they need to believe in him. He has granted all mankind a conscience. He's granted all mankind having been made in the image of God, the ability to deliberate and to choose, and therefore we could say yes, well of course, God by revelation, by the power of his word has granted or given faith in the sense that he's given the ability for people to believe. It makes little sense for the limits of Jesus, oh ye of little faith. You unbelieving generation. That makes little sense if what Matt is suggesting is true because he should be looking up to heaven saying God why didn't you actually cause them to believe more? Why would he express such frustration or even appealing and pleading with them to believe if he's the one who ultimately controls whether or not they do? It just does not make any rational sense. It makes nonsense out of many of the passages and the calls of Jesus himself in responses on disciples or to the lost around him of appealing to them to believe and in expression frustration for them when they don't. If indeed God is the one who ultimately controls whether they believe or not through some effectual gift versus what normally we would think of as a gift as something you can use or you can refuse to use based upon your own choices. So that's just one aspect I think that he doesn't consider as far as in his interpretation of this passage. Let's go on before I jump into my interpretation of Romans 8, 28 and following. Let's go ahead and listen to what Matt goes on to say here. Like I walked up and I shaked my pastor's hand and we prayed and I accepted Christ and I have argued and will argue until glory God saved you in your seat. That saved you in your seat because if you praying, repeating a prayer up front from your pastor saved you then we're witches, not Christians. That's an incantation, that's not regeneration. Okay. Time out. Romans 10-9, if you declare with your mouth, okay? So there is a call here. If you declare with your mouth, Jesus is Lord. So there's a call for more than just getting out of your seat. Yes, there is something to be said about what compelling somebody to walk forward. But you can't conflate the concept of being under conviction with whether someone is quote unquote saved. It's saying if you declare with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Of course, it's with your heart that you believe and are justified and it's with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. So it's with your mouth that you profess and are saved and so calling somebody to walk forward and to say with their mouth and to pray, that's not an incantation. David, David, a plat I think made an overstatement on this that we went over earlier and Paul washer declaring war on the sinner's prayer and all these kinds of things. You can throw the baby out with the bathwater because I think what they're trying to confront is this concept or idea of, hey, if you say this magic prayer, then you're going to be saved regardless of if your life changes or whether you meant it or not. But at the same time you can't go so far as to say that there's not the need for in the call of Scripture to make a profession with your mouth to actually say, I believe. And so if you declare with your mouth Jesus is Lord, you believe in your heart. So what compels someone to come forward, well, you can rightly say, yeah, the word of God is what compelled them to walk for. The word of God is what brought conviction. You can sell of that, but you don't have to assume irresistibility or effectuality. There is a sense in which God can bring conviction through the proclamation of his word, but you can also white knuckle it, which we've probably had experiences in our own life or people we know who had, we are under conviction, who knew that they should have gone forward, but for whatever reason chose not to do so, who chose to resist, who cared too much about the opinions of men instead of the opinion of God and refused to confess, refused to come and take the pastor by the hand because of whatever reason that they may have decided on for rejecting the gospel. But that becomes the problem with the Calvinistic worldview is that you have the flip side of it. You can always say, well, God is 100% responsible for whether you choose to walk forward or don't, but then what about those who don't? Then you ultimately have God to blame for those who don't choose to walk forward. You've got a situation where God has rejected that person and that's why he's not walking forward. God doesn't really love that person. That's why he's not walking forward. God doesn't really want that person to come forward. That's why he's not coming forward. And that's the problem with Calvinism is that you have both sides of it. In their well-intended effort to give God all the credit for the conversion of the lost, they have also given God all the blame for the lack of conversion of everyone else. That's a part of the problem with the Calvinistic worldview. If instead you just remove irresistibility or the effectuality of the eye of the tulip, this problem really goes away. You just simply say God has provided all that anyone needs. Because he has provided the means of by grace to allow for anyone to come to him and to have a tonement. And therefore, the responsibility is yours as to whether you take a hold of that or you trust in him, whether you follow him or not. That's completely and totally on you as to whether you walk forward and profess the faith that you have that you say, "God, I need help. I can't save myself. I need someone else to save me." That is your responsibility, that's not God's choice as to whether you will choose to follow him or not. That is your responsibility. And that's the difference between the two worldviews. Matt goes on. Now, a pastor might have been your guide up front, but what compelled you to get out of your seat and come forward was the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in your heart. So somebody must. Okay, so this is what he's teaching here is pre-faith regeneration. In other words, you have to be regenerated in order to believe. That's the Calvinistic concept of the eye of irresistible grace, is that God is going to make you alive so that you'll believe. Now, we've covered this on a number of other broadcasts, but I'll just point us back to John 2031. These things I've written, speaking of the gospel, these things I've written so that you may believe. And that by believing you may have life in his name. That's the order soluteous, the order of salvation. By believing this, you may have life in his name. In other words, you believe unto new life, you're not given new life so as to effectively be caused to believe. And again, we've gone through hundreds of texts proving that very, I think very clearly, and showing that the Bible again and again and again gives the order as faith leading to new life, that faith leads to rebirth. You're not reborn so as to believe, you believe unto new life, you believe so as to be reborn. You're not given a new heart so that you can admit you had a bad heart. You have to admit you have a bad heart in order to get a new heart. You have to repent, cleanse yourself as the Scripture even says, in order to receive the new heart as a Zechial 18, gets into specific. And so those are just issues you've got to kind of contend with in the Calvinistic interpretation. It helps you put words to it, might help shape you, but when all said done, you got saved in that seed. You got saved in that seed. So you got saved before you confess with your mouth, profess with your, you profess your faith and are saved. So before you profess your faith, you're already saved to what he's saying. And again, the Scriptures are pretty clear here. Yeah, you may have it a sense in which you believe and it's propelling you to walk forward. And if you were to drop dead on your way down the aisle, I'm not trying to say, well, God wouldn't have saved you. But the process of our conversion, the process of our salvation, and again, getting into the weeds and specific about things, does ask us to profess. It does ask us to confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord, to confess our sins. That's a part of that process for salvation. And again, it's not saying that those professions are the incantations of witchcraft by which you're saved. What it's, what it's saying is that this is a demonstration of a heart change, which again comes when you submit to him, when you say, I cannot do it, I cannot save myself. I need someone else and you're putting your trust in another. So you're not saving yourself. You're saying, I can't save myself. I can't do enough, I have to trust in another. And that is your responsibility. The Bible says again and again and again, humble yourselves, put your faith in Christ. That is always stated as your responsibility, not God's. It's never in Scripture talked about as something that God is going to somehow affectionately cause or make you want to do. And said, this is something you have to do for yourself. You have to humble yourself. You have to admit that you're the sinner. [BLANK_AUDIO] you have to give up striving after the ways of the law or working your way into heaven and give it over to him. You've got to make that decision yourself. That's your responsibilities, not gods. We've talked about what it's not. So let's talk about what it is. And I think the best way, I think the fair way to do this is look at how the Bible uses this idea of knowing in its context or in the context of how God knows. And there are some, there's a few little problems in how the Bible talks about God knowing that I think we will help us in figuring out and getting to the bottom of what foreknowledge is. Okay. And so in Amos chapter 3 verse 2, you don't have to turn there. That God says through the prophet Amos, "You only have I known among all the families on the earth." Now, what's the problem with that? It almost makes it sound like there are there are families of the earth that God is not aware of. Right? So through the prophet Amos to the covenant community of faith, "You alone have I known among all the families of the earth." We know at one sense that's not true. Like that God is not, all right, unable to see the Assyrians and the Babylonian, all right? There's not people groups that he doesn't see. He's saying that there's a way that I know Israel that is different than the way I know the Babylonians, the Assyrians, and on, and on, I could go. Okay. In Hosea 13, 5, I knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought. Now, he knew him in slavery. He knew him in the promised land. He knew him everywhere. He's saying here, in the wilderness, in the time of drought, I knew you in a special way in Matthew 7, 23. In fact, let me do Psalm 16. For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish, all right? So that there's a way that he knows the righteous that is different in the way he knows the wicked, and we see that I could, you know, compare these texts. The next one being Matthew 7, 23, where he says, "I never knew you, depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." So, so I know you well enough that you practice lawlessness, but I don't know you in a way that I would say, "I know you." Are you with me on this? Okay. And we would have no problem with those distinctions. And there is a way in which you can know somebody versus just having knowledge, just somebody's existence, but the question becomes, is it unconditional knowledge? In other words, does he know them? Because they have refused to obey, and because of their been workers of an equity who suppress the truth and unrighteousness and refuse to engage with God through the covenant relationship that he's established, is that the reason that they don't know him? Or is it because God has determined their choices and their actions before they were ever born? And that's where it comes down to, is yeah, we agree with everything he's saying, but then just go back to the unconditionality aspect of it, is that his knowledge of them conditional upon the relationship that is established either through free will or through divine decree, effectual decree. And so, again, these are all nuances that aren't necessarily the point of contention because we can agree with our Calvinistic brothers that there's a sense in which you can know somebody in an intimate way, as he goes on to make the argument of Adam and Eve, Adam knew Eve, and they're more a child, and so there's more intimacy in that knowledge. And again, my interpretation, which I want to take you to now, is agreement in a sense with that concept of foreknowledge. And right here, I said, many have reduced the interpretive options of the term forenew in Romans 829 to either the classical Armenian concept of foreseen or the Calvinistic concept of foreordained or predestined. In other words, it seems to me that the Calvinistic interpretation of forenew equals predestination, so it's almost redundant for him to talk about those he forenew, he also predestined, like he's saying, those he's predestined, he's also predestined. And it makes virtually the word mean the exact same thing in two different senses. And I don't think that that's what Paul had intended here. Now, again, they're even from the Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic perspective. There are different ways in which this text is interpreted. Calvinists have a couple of different ways, they interpret this text, and non-Calvinists have a couple of different ways, they interpret this text. And so don't think it's just cut and dry as it's either white or black or it's either A or B. There's oftentimes on the A side, there's A sub point B and sub point C. On the other side, there's A sub point, you know, A and B. And so there's other options within each interpretation, which is why sometimes it can get kind of cloudy. And when it's oversimplified in a quick little sermon, sometimes it can be made to be like, oh, well, it's either this view that sounds like God's into DeLorean or it's Calvinism, then a lot of people go, oh, well, it must be Calvinism then, because Matt Chandler is a really good speaker and he's dynamic and he's winsome and he's fun and he agrees with, you know, John Piper, who's also really cool and fun too. So it must be what it is, and they never really study the scholars from both perspectives to really be good brilliance and decide knowing full well that both perspectives in front of them. And I would rather you know what's the slowest belief, for example, or A.W. Tozer or a lot of other scholars throughout Christian history have known and have believed about these doctrines. So as to come to an educated decision as to where you land versus just based upon a sermon or two that you heard online. So there's the concept of foreseeing. This is the concept he kind of made fun of in some ways or dismissed as kind of prediction, estic as you know, the DeLorean kind of a thing, as that God saw, you know, look through the quarters of time to see who would believe and chose those individuals based upon foreseeing faith. And it's typically known as the classical Armenian or Wesleyan approach, but even that approach is more in depth than even that simple statement. There's more to it than just that perspective. For ordain is this concept that God set his love on certain unconditionally preselected individuals before the world began, he foreloved them and effectively works to change their hearts so that they will want to come to him for salvation. This is the more Calvinistic rendering of the word for knowledge. Progenosco is the Greek word, but there is a third and I think much simpler option that is often overlooked in some modern theological circles. And that is this, formally known. In other words, known before. For example, the only other time that Paul uses this term is in Romans 112. We probably should look at the only other time that Paul uses the word progenosco in his own writings to determine maybe what he might be intending by it, right? Especially when they're so close together. This is in chapter 8 and just just a few chapters later in chapter 11. He uses the same word progenosco again. And so that should tell us that we should look at it. So Paul is simply referring to in Romans 112, the saints of old and former times, Israel, who loved God and were known by God. And so Paul said, the man who loves God is known by God. First Corinthians 8.3. So let me say that again, the man who loves God, there's the condition is known by God. So that goes back to his Matthew 5, quote, was it or Matthew 7? Where he talks about those who never knew you, I never knew you, depart for me. Well, that's because of those who love God. Those are the people who are known by God. And if you don't love God, as Romans 8.28, just now talks about, he's talking about the fact that he works all things out for those who love him. And so those who love God are known by God. And so it's not an unconditional knowing, it's a knowing of those who love him. That's first Corinthians 8.3. Again, Paul's teaching of the word known by God is or those who are who choose to love God, choose to put their faith in God. And men like Elijah, and those who refuse to bow in need to false gods, did love and thus were known by him in the past. They were for known. They were previously known by God as in they had an intimate personal relationship with God in the past. There's no reason to add all the esoteric, I can't get that word out, esoteric theological baggage of God looking through the corners of time or making arbitrary sovereign choices about who he will and will not love before the world began. You see what I'm saying? There's in other words, you don't have to have the difficulty of this concept of God choosing to affectionately love certain individuals and to dam the rest to eternity and hell for something that have absolutely no control over. You don't have to swallow that difficult pill, okay? It's just it's just not needed. In his work, the only wise God, the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom, Dr. William Lane Craig refers references the word study of Dr. Roger Forrester and Marston, Paul Marston, God's strategy and human history with the recommendation by the notable F.F. Bruce. They argue, quote, "God forenew them or knew them of old." Thus it does not mean that God entertains some former time into a relationship with the Israelites of today. It means that he entered into a two-way relationship with Israel that existed in the early Old Testament times, and he regards the present Israelites as integral with it. Dr. William Nuel, who was one of the greatest Bible teachers of his day, is a friend and colleague of D. L. Moody and R. A. Torrey. He taught thousands of people as a Bible teacher at Moody College, Bible College. His book Romans verse by verse discusses that God "had acquaintance with the Israelites of the past." So it was not quote "meer divine" -- it was not mere divine pre-knowledge of certain individuals, but a real intimate relationship or real intimate pre-acquaintance with people who actually existed in the past. So what I'm asking you to do is to take an objective look at this perspective and give it a fair hearing before you dismiss it out of hand. Any interpretation that is new to you seems far fetched to you. That's just the nature of it. It's like what we talked about with the bleak, the duck, the rabbit thing. One picture looks like two different things. The first time somebody tries to tell you it's a rabbit. When all you've ever seen is a duck all your life, it seems far fetched to you until you finally take objective look at it and see it from that perspective. This is the same thing. If you've never read or understood another perspective, it's going to seem far fetched to you. Think about the first time you came into Calvinism if you're a Calvinist. Didn't it seem far fetched to you when you first heard it? Yeah, I did. It took you a while to come over to that side of things. Well, the same thing is coming out of Calvinism for me. When I first heard this interpretation, I kind of laughed it off at first, okay, because it didn't seem plausible. It seemed like a picture that Paul was not painting at all. But the more I've considered it and looked at other passages and seen other scholars who have explained it from their perspective, the more I'm going, oh, well, that makes sense. And it doesn't create all the baggage that the Calvinist interpretation creates. And it's consistent with four or five other passages that say similar things. So maybe this is the right one. And then I begin to go, yeah, it makes more sense. And now I go, I can't see it any other way. I can't see how Paul could possibly meet any other thing. And so I'm just saying, take an objective look. In other words, back away from your perspective, put down your picture for a moment and try to see this one more clearly. Many exegetes and scholars in the past held to this view. But it's been buried under, I think, the all-too-popularized Armenian/Calvinistic debate over the last three to four hundred years in our Western culture. And I direct people to quotes there from other scholars at the bottom of the page. Here's the re-blog of the commentary that I wrote on the subject. Beginning in verse 28 of chapter 8, and we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, those who are called according to his purpose. So again, we're talking about those who love God. So there is a condition here. People, you need to love God, right? And what do we know about people who love God? We already read it earlier. Remember what Paul says about those who love God, 1 Corinthians 8, 3, the man who loves God is known by God, okay? So those in the past who love God, they loved God, and they were known by God in the past, formally, okay? This is the way the word is used in the original text and other verses as well. You see the Greek verb "Oida" is translated "we know" is a perfect active indicative form of the verb, meaning to observe and therefore perceive. The perfect tense indicates past-completed action with continuous results. Paul is literally saying we have observed and therefore we know. This is not intuitive knowledge in other words, but that which comes from observation of the past. Paul in my estimation is saying we know from observation of God's past dealings with those who love him that he has a mysterious way of working things out for the greatest good. By observing the stories of the saints that have gone before us, those called to accomplish his redemptive purposes, we can rest in knowledge of this truth. God can take whatever evil may come our way and redeem it for good. We know this because he has been doing it for generations. So Paul is not merely saying that to his readers, that his readers should intuitively know how God works things out for those who love him. He is saying we know that this is true of God today, reflected in the present tense of the verb of the verse 28 by observing what he has done in the past for those who love him reflected in the airst or the past tense of verse 29 through 30. We have a great cloud of witnesses that have gone before us, as he speaks of in Hebrews 12-1, giving evidence of God's trustworthiness toward all who enter into a covenant with him. A simple survey of the verses leading up to this point reveals that Paul is reflecting on the problem of evil and the suffering in our world since the beginning for the creation was subject to futility, not willing, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in a hope that creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now, Romans 8-23-22. Notable New Testament scholar-into-right comments on Romans 8-28 saying in part, this passage is a sharp close-up compressed, is telling the story of Israel, as the chosen people whose identity and destiny is then brought into sharp focus on Jesus. Jesus, in a sense, is the one chosen one. But then that identity is shared with all of those who are in Christ. And he, Paul, isn't talking primarily, they're about salvation. He's talking primarily about the way God is healing the whole of creation. There is a danger here, and what happens in so many theological circles over the years is that people have come to the text assuming that it's really saying how we are to get to heaven. And what is the mechanism, and how does that work? If you do that, interestingly, more or less skip over Romans 8-18-27, which is about the renewing of creation, in quote. In verse 28, the focus shifts to providing comfort from those in suffering by reminding them to observe God's dealings with others who love God throughout history. Notice that this truth is not applicable to everyone. It is specifically an observation of those who love God, or as right noted, those who are in Christ. The point is not that God causes everything for a good purpose, but that God redeems the evil for a good purpose in the lives of who, those who love Him. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to use this passage to support the concept of divine meticulous determinism of all things. Again, God does not cause the evil for his own purposes, but instead he redeems the evil for a good purpose. As even Calvinist pastor John MacArthur explains, "But God's role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then over rules evil for his own wise and holy ends. Ultimately, he is able to make all things, including all the fruits of all the evil of all time work together for a greater good." And we would agree with that. The focus of the Apostles observation is on the saints of old, those from the elect nation of Israel who are called to fulfill God's plan to redeem His creation from its groans and sufferings. This does not mean that the truth being revealed is not applicable of other nations. Rather, it means that what is proven to be true of God by observing His dealings with those called out from Israel throughout history must also be true of anyone who comes to follow and love the God of Israel. I want you to consider this example. A new pastor is called to a church. The staff members are nervous about his leadership style and how they might be treated, but a reference who knows the pastor might reflect on his past relationships in order to ease their fears. The pastor's reference might say something like, "I have observed this pastor's dealing with the staff members he knew before." And he is always worked to lovingly support anyone who gets behind the vision and direction of the church. See, Bobber, reflecting on this pastor's history, this new staff can know what to expect in their future dealings with him. So too, I believe Paul is giving a divine reference of sorts by reflecting on the trustworthiness of God in his dealings with the saints of old, so as to ensure his readers of what they may expect of him. Verse 29, "For those whom he forenew, notice the shift from the present to the past tense. Here the apostle clearly reveals his focus on the saints of old, those whom he forenew, those he knew previously." What the word forenew progenosco is interpreted that way. Again, in 112 and it's used in other passages, like we'll see here in a little bit, in that exact same way. So there's a precedent for the word progenosco being used to simply refer to those in the past. And so Paul is seeking to provide evidence of a truth in the present verse 28 by reflecting on God's faithfulness to those beloved who were known before in the past. That's why the eras tense is being employed here in verse 29 and following. Paul is providing a reference of sorts to ease the fears of those who are just now coming to faith. This point contributes, excuse me, this point continues to be the apostles' focus for the next three chapters. Much debate centers on the meaning of the word progenosco, but many of the most popular authors fell to recognize all the available options that are up for consideration in this interpretation. For example, Dr. John Piper, a notable Calvinistic pastor, lists only two options for interpreting this verse, which is exactly what Matt Chandler does, by the way, who was mentored by Piper, obviously. In his sermon here, we just heard him give the two options. It's the simple foresight faith to you, or Calvinism. And that's exactly what Piper does as well in his book, 'cause he gives option number one, as God foresaw, our self-determined faith, we remain in the, we remain the decisive cause of our salvation. God responds to our decision to believe. That's option one, according to his reductionistic view of our perspective. And then option two, God chose us, not on the basis of forcing faith, but on the basis of nothing in us. He called us, and the call itself creates the faith for which it calls. So Piper seems to overlook the most basic meaning of this term, which is to know before, or to have known in the past. The same Greek word is used in second Peter 317, which states, you therefore beloved knowing this beforehand, beyond your guard, so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men. In Acts 26, 4 and 5, the same word is used. Prognosis goes used again. So then all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation, and at Jerusalem, since they have known about me for a long time, since they have prognosis go. Okay, they have known about me for a long time. In other words, they have known this about me in my past. So it's a previously known state of affairs of an individual in the past. That's what the word prognosis goes used. It's the simplest, most basic use of the term. Clearly this word could be understood simply as to know someone or something in the past as in those known previously, which is exactly how it's used in Romans 11 to 2, okay? The saints of old, excuse me. So if Paul means to use the word prognosis go in this sense, then he is simply saying because we have seen how God worked all things to the good for those whom he knew before, we know that he will do the same for those who love and are called by him now. Now Calvinist will continue that the word for new is equivalent to the term for loved. Actually, I don't have a problem with that. That use of the word generally it actually fits this application given that the Israelites of the past who loved God would have certainly been loved by God before, for loved. But just not for love for no apparent reason. Again, as we already learned from 1 Corinthians and Paul's already writing is those who love God, God knows those people who love him, okay? So there is a sense in which it's a different kind of love, but it's not an unconditional knowing of them. It's a condition based upon their love for and trust in God. So of course, the Calvinist application is different in that they insist this passage is about God setting his effectual saving love upon certain individuals before the foundation of the world to then neglect of the rest. The passage never says any of that. That's just all read into it based upon other passages kind of read into that passage. But Calvinist will go to great lengths to show that God did not merely foresee by quote, looking down the quarters of time or getting into a delorean as Matt put it there. The behavior and the choices of the elect, but that he knew them intimately and set his effectual love on them before the foundation of the world. Now this argument may serve to address the classical simplified oversimplified, I would say, Armenian approach, which is Piper's first option. But it really fails to address the approach being advocated here. For love is a viable and even likely meaning of the term prognosco. Yet it does not tell us who, in for what reason, the intended target may be of that divine love. It is a group of people out of the mass of humanity. Is it mean that a group of people out of the mass of humanity is preselected to be affectionately saved in the mind of the apostle? Or could it simply mean those in the past who God has known and faithfully cared for throughout generations? Those who love God as verse 28 has already reflected upon. The verse goes on to say he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his son. So here's the question, who was predestined? And to what ends were they predestined according to this passage? Remember the point of the apostle leading up to this verse. He began speaking about the futility and suffering that has come into the world due to what? The fall of humanity into sin, verses 23-22. And in verse 28, he provides comfort by reminding his readers of the trustworthiness of God for those who have loved him throughout all the generations. Paul is reminding his readers that God will redeem the suffering and the evil for a good purpose and the lives just as he has done in the lives of those known and loved throughout previous generations. It is these who God previously knew, for new, prognoscope. The Israelites who loved God in the past who were predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ. So as to make the way for his coming, God planned to accomplish salvation for those who were previously known and loved. People like Abraham and Moses and David and Isaac and all these people throughout the Old Testament that God obviously had a relationship within the past. For new, he prognoscope, he knew them before. See by conforming them into the image of the very one coming to purchase their redemption. This is the ultimate example of God causing all things to work together for good. To those saints of old who loved and were called by God, Paul is saying that God worked together the redemption of their souls and he will do the same for whoever loves him today. As NT Wright puts it, quote, "There is a note of hope which has been sounded by implications so often since it was introduced in Romans 5 too, hope for the renewal of all creation in a great act of liberation for which the Exodus from Egypt was simply an earthly type. As a result, all that Israel hoped for, all that it based its hope on is true of those who are in Christ so that he would be the firstborn of many brethren." The passage goes on to say, "Consider the fact that he is speaking about what Christ would be, which suggests that Paul still has the saints of old and focus here. Why would Paul speak of a future of future generations being conformed to the image of Christ so that he would be the firstborn of many brethren? If he was already the firstborn prior to this discourse, you see the Greek proto means first. And when you add to get to, it gives us firstborn." And that is what we find here in Colossians 1, 15, 18, Luke 2, 7, Hebrews 1, 6, 11, 28, 12, 23, and Revelation 1, 5. The term can simply be in reference to the one who is first to be born in a family as seen in Luke 2, 7, which carries much significance obviously in the Jewish culture. Often the birthright given to the firstborn son signified a place of preeminence by which he would receive the Father's inheritance and blessings. For instance, in Psalm 89, 20 and 27, it says, "I have found David my servant with my holy oil, I have anointed him. I also shall make him my firstborn." As you see, David, who was the last one born in his family, was called the firstborn by God. He was given a place of preeminence. He was chosen for that noble purpose. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, John 3, 16. He was a firstborn son of Mary, Luke 2, 7. But most significantly, he is also God in the flesh. And thus, the pre-minute one in all things. The description, firstborn of all creation, speaks of Christ's pre-existence as the Eternal Creator, John 1, 10. God created the world through Christ and redeemed the world through Christ. Hebrews 1, 2, 4. The former speaks of eternal nature and the latter of his temporal role as the Redeemer of the world. The phrase firstborn expresses Christ's sovereignty over creation. After resurrecting Jesus from the dead, God gave him authority over the Earth, Matthew 28, 18. Jesus created the world, saved the world, and rules the world. He is the self-existent, acknowledged head of creation. Yet, even when speaking of our pre-existent Lord, the biblical authors address him as becoming or fulfilling his role as our Messiah within the temporal world, for example, the Psalmist writes, "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the Earth," Psalm 8927. For the Old Testament saints, the firstborn savior is a reality that is yet to come, something in the future. The long-awaited Messiah is a future hope, not a past-completed reality. A modern day preacher, for example, would not preach. He, God, will make him the firstborn, as the Psalmist did in the 89th chapter, because we understand him to have already fulfilled that role in his coming as the firstborn of the Virgin Mary. Likewise, I know that modern day preacher would not say that we are being conformed to Christ's image, so that he would be the first born among many brethren, because we know him to already be the first born of many brethren, the Messiah, and Carnot. Our being conformed or sanctified today has nothing to do with the future coming of Christ's birth, whereas the saints of old were part of this very lineage. It is though, it is through the life of men like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and many other saints of old that Christ is brought into this world so that he would be the first born of many brethren. It seems very likely that Paul is reflecting on God's redemptive purpose being accomplished through those who loved God in former generations. That redemptive purpose included the bringing of the Messiah into this world through Israel, Romans 9, 4, and 5, or more specifically, those Israelites set apart for that noble purpose, Romans 9, 21. This was God's predestined plan of redemption, which was brought to pass through those who loved God, to those who were called according to his purpose, verse 28. As pastor and author Tim Warren describes, "Paul was not referring to some prior knowledge in the mind of God before creation, nor was he speaking about predetermining their fate. He was referring to those whom God knew personally and intimately, men like Abraham and David. The term "for new" does not mean to have knowledge of someone before they were conceived. The verb "prognosco" is the word "for no" in an intimate sense with the presupposition pro before prefixed to it. It refers to having an intimate relationship with someone in the past. Similarly, we could render Romans 8.29 as follows, "For those God formerly knew intimately, he previously determined them to be conformed to the image of his son." Let me say that again. In other words, he reworded Romans 8.29 so that you understand the perspective we're coming at it from. Just try to understand it. For those God formerly knew intimately, those like David, Jacob, people in the past. For those God formerly knew intimately, he previously, pre, in the past, he determined them to be conformed to the image of his son. That's simple. The individual saints of old, with whom God had a personal relationship, were predestined by him to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is, God predetermined to bring their salvation to completion by the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf, which by the way, this is a perfect example of how God works all things out for good, for those who love him by giving the example of how he's done that for those in the past. There's notes there at the bottom of the article for those who believe in this perspective. Verse 30 goes on to say, "And these whom he predestined, he also called, and these whom he called, he also justified, and these whom he justified, he also glorified." Now notice again, the apostles use of the past tense in this verse. If Paul is intending to speak about the future salvation of every elect individual, the Calvinistic interpretation of elect individual, why would he use all these past tense verbs? Paul, when writing these words, had not yet been glorified, and his readers certainly had not been glorified yet, so why use the past tense word of the word glorified? There's no reason to assume he has in mind the future glorification of all believers here. Once again, Paul is clearly referencing former generations of those who have loved God, those called to fulfill his redemptive purpose, those he knew and loved in the past generations, those predestined by God to be made in the very image of the one to come, the first born of many brethren, something already completed in the past through the working of God in former generations. These are the individuals who he called, justified, and who now, even as Paul is writing these words, were already glorified in the presence of God. This truth is more clearly stated in Hebrews 9.15, and for this reason, he, Jesus, is the mediator of the new covenant by means of death, for the redemption of transgressions under the first covenant, so that those having been called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. The Greek word, here, is the perfect passive participle, which literally translated to mean having been called. This clearly refers to those in the past, with whom God has a personal loving relationship. So too, Paul in Romans 8 is using the past tense verbs to indicate his intentions. Nothing in these passages meant to introduce a golden chain of irresistible salvation for certain preselected individuals throughout all of human history. That meaning has to be isegetically read into this text. Due to the use of the past tense verbs, just are forced to do some, I think, textural gymnastics in order to maintain their interpretation of Paul's intents. Intent, for instance, one notable Calvinistic commentary states, quote, "And all this is viewed as past, because starting from the past decree of predestination to be conformed to the image of God's Son, of which the other steps are but the successive unfoldings, all is beheld as one entire eternally completed salvation. Calvinist are forced to interpret Paul's use of the past tense as meaning it's as good as done, because it's predestined." But the text never says this is Paul's intention. The Calvinistic commentator should take into account Paul's usage of the same term earlier in the chapter as a future tense hope for believers. For example, notice Paul's reference to the future glorification in Romans 8 17. "And if children," Paul says, "hears also, hears of God and fellow hears with Christ, if indeed we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him," future tense. He does not speak of glorification as a past, completed action and reference to the believers in his day. In fact, he seems to qualify they're being glorified upon the condition that they persevere through the suffering that is to come. If it is as good as done due to God's predetermination, then why would Paul make such a qualification and use this future tense of the same verb? Further, Paul goes on to speak of the eager expectation of the glorification that is to come in verse 22 to 25. "For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now, and not only this, but also we ourselves having the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves waiting eagerly for our adoption of sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen as no hope at all, for who hopes for what he already has, but if we hope for what we do not yet have, or see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. Are we to believe that Paul shifts from speaking of glorification as a future hope for those who persevere to speaking of it as a past and already completed action, even for those who have not yet been glorified? Or could it simply be that Paul has the saints of old still-inful view as he makes his case for the trustworthiness of God throughout all generations? This certainly seems to be the simplest and most basic understanding of the apostles' words in this context. Paul clearly intended to communicate that those who loved God, those who God previously knew and times passed, were predestined by God to be conformed into the image of the one to come, who would be, prove them the firstborn of many brethren. Paul is giving a brief history lesson of what God has done in former generations as a reference for God's trustworthiness, for all who come to faith in Him, for all who love Him. In T. Wright explains it this way, "The creation is not God, but it is designed to be flooded with God. The Spirit will liberate the whole creation. Underneath all this, of course, remains Christology. The purpose was that the Messiah might be the firstborn among many siblings, 829. Paul is careful not to say or imply that the privileges of Israel are simply transferred to the church, even though for Him the church means Jews and Gentiles together in Christ. Rather, the destiny of Israel has devolved entirely appropriately with the Jewish scheme upon the Messiah, so that the new family inherit, they inherit in Him." Those who object to suggesting that Paul's use of this passage is limited to the beloved of Israel should consider the following. Look at, and this is a quote from Paul out of Romans 1121 through, excuse me, Romans 10 21 through 11 2, quote, "As for Israel," he says, "all the day long, I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient and absent people." I say then, "God has not rejected His people. Has He made it never be for I to am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He progenosco." Again, progenosco is used. He's not rejected His people whom He forenew. So he's again referring to the people of old. Once again, Paul uses the term progenosco in reference to God's intimate relationship with the faithful Israelites of old, those who refuse to bow and need a bell. These are the people who remained faithful to God, those who trusted in Him, those against of the one known by God. Paul goes on to make this case, or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel. Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your alters, and I alone am the left, and they're seeking my life. But what is the divine response to him? I have kept from myself 7,000 men who have not bowed and knee to bell Romans 11, 2 through 4. Elijah and those who refused to bow and need to bell were among the ones who were previously known by God. To foreknow or even to forelove refers to God's intimate relationship with people who loved him in the past. Like Abraham referenced again in Romans 4, 22 through 5, 5, there is nothing in this or any other text that supports the concept of a mystical preselection of certain individuals out of the mass of humanity in eternity past for no apparent reason, supposedly. So no other passage in scripture supports the meaning of the term for no in reference to the Israelites who were in covenant with God. It always can simply be interpreted as in reference to those known by God in former times. So to return to the analogy above, the pastor had former staff members who he intimately knew and loved. The new staff would be comforted to know of the pastor's prior dealings with those formerly known and loved. Likewise, those being grafted into covenant with God, the God of Israel for the first time, i.e. the Gentiles, would be thrilled to learn of God's faithfulness to those whom he formerly knew and loved, men like Abraham and David, etc. The rest of this passage falls right in line with this interpretation. And it goes on to read verse 31 and following. So I wanted you to hear an alternative interpretation to what Matt Chandler is offering here because I want you to see it's not just game playing, it's not just saying we don't believe in predestination, we don't believe in foreknowledge, we do absolutely believe in foreknowledge, we do absolutely believe in predestination. But who is predestined and to what? And for what purposes? As God just arbitrarily selecting people for no apparent reason before the world begins, so as to cause them to have faith in effectual ways as the Calvinist would read it, or is it talking about how the fact that God has predestined from the beginning of time that whoever, whether Jew or Gentile, believes in trust in Christ, will have spiritual blessings, will be conformed into the image of his son, will be made wholly and blameless as Ephesians chapter 1 goes on to talk about. But these spiritual blessings which are in Christ, and you can only discover and have those blessings in Christ, that God is predestined, that whoever's in him shall be saved. The analogy I like to use, and some of you may have heard before, is the two airplane analogy, where you got two airplanes that are both predestined, their flights are predestined, they're going to fly from Dallas to Chicago tomorrow at noon, okay? One plane, let's say it's piloted by Calvin for John Calvin, he's the one who selects everyone who gets on that plane, and he's perfect at convincing the person that he wants, so he never fails in convincing the person he wants to get on the plane, and he makes sure they sit in the exact seat that he's predetermined, and everything they say on that flight is predetermined, because everything is under the "solver" meaning determined will of the pilot, and therefore he determines everyone that gets on the plane, he determines everything that happens on the plane, and he determines the destination, everything's determined. However, the other plane, it's piloted by Hobbes, Calvin and Hobbes, okay? And standing for Herschel Hobbes, the traditionalist of Southern Baptist history, and so Hobbes would say, whosoever's welcome on the plane, there's plenty of seats for anyone who wants to come, anyone can come, enter into the plane, okay? And so you freely have the option to get on the plane, order refuse to get on the plane, and once you get on the plane, you're sealed in that plane, and the destination is sealed. Both of them have a doctrine of predestination, because even in Hobbes playing, there is a predestination, it's a predetermining of whoever, whether Jew or Gentile, no matter how bad you've been in the past, no matter where you've come from, if you choose to put your trust in him, to get on to the plane, to put yourself in Christ, which is what the plane is representing, being in him, then you have been predetermined, it has been predestined for you to be conformed to the image of his son, as Romans 8, 29 says, and to be conformed and to be made holy and blameless as Ephesians chapter 1 teaches. And so it's been predestined that whosoever's in him through Christ, you will be made holy and blameless, your destination is sealed, it will be, it is determined predetermined by God, if you put your trust in your faith in him, you will be sealed by the Holy Spirit, and he will bring you to the destination he wants you to, he will conform you, he will sanctify you and glorify you, that God has predestined what will come of whosoever is in the airplane, whoever's in Christ. So both of us have a doctrine of predestination, both of us have a doctrine of foreknowledge. You have to decide freely which one Paul was actually intending, keeping in mind mind you that the church for the first 400 years interpreted it the way I interpret it, okay? And for the first 400 years, according to documents that I show you, and we've talked about here on other programs, Augustine was the first to begin to interpret these passages more Calvinistically, more as an individual, westernized way of looking at the text of God, choosing certain individuals for no apparent reason, unconditionally before the world began, and this Calvinistic rendering of these kinds of passages. The early church, Arneas Ignatius, Athanasius, so many other early church fathers who actually knew Greek, unlike Augustine who did not know Greek, interpreted and understood the doctrine of election and predestination of foreknowledge much more in our manner of speaking than in the Calvinistic manner of speaking. In the first four centuries, the only place we see determinism in this kind set of divine predestination of everything that takes place as we see in Calvin's writing, well, in place we see that in the first four centuries is in Gnosticism. Now, am I trying to say that all Calvinist or Gnostic's know, there's a lot of things that Gnostic's teach that Calvinist would never teach. But what I am saying is that the only place you can find, the doctrines of predestination as taught by Matt Chandler and other Calvinists in the first four centuries are from the Gnostic's of that day, and the early church fathers were fighting vehemently against Gnosticism and fighting for the concept of libertarian freedom of the will that we would hold to from our perspective. So that should be taken into consideration as well when you're deciding which of these is most likely the interpretation of the original authors. What was Paul intending to say when he wrote these words? Was he attending to give a golden chain of redemption by which to declare that certain individuals are fated for eternal life and certain individuals are fated to eternal damnation for no apparent reason except that God decided that this is the way it would be before the world began and you have no say in that matter. You're either created for life or for destruction as even John Calvin puts it himself. I just don't think that that's the proper interpretation and I think it leads to fatalistic conclusions. I think it can lead to things that can cause people to even turn from the faith altogether as we saw in the interview with Megan Phelps on Joe Rogan's show where she not only left Westbrobandist thankfully but she also decided to leave Christianity altogether because she came to the belief that Romans 9 did teach Calvinism and that she couldn't see God as anything but evil if that's true that God has predetermined and predestined the fate of most of humanity as being hated and rejected and without the hope of salvation or even the opportunity to respond to the God of love and provision as we would hold to. And so I want to challenge those who go to the 9 Marks conferences in southeastern. I want to challenge Southern Baptist who are being pressured to go this direction because it's kind of the rising new resurgence within our convention to say have you really studied to know the other side from the scholarly perspective or have you just kind of listened to real whimsome kind of cool sounding sermons online from really you know kind of well-known pastor types that are just telling you what to believe and just giving you the other side a glimpse of the other side is just the Dolorean kind of God versus really examining those perspectives from the scholars themselves and I want to challenge you to go deeper than maybe where you've gone before and really understand why you believe what you believe if you can help support us at sociology 101 there's a support link at so theology 101 in the top right corner if you can click on that you can become a one-time donor or a monthly supporter we need your help to get the word out about God's love and provision of all people it's only what's going to happen is if you guys get behind us and help us to promote this work if you want to be a part of Trinity College of the Bible and theological seminary you close click on the classroom link for more information about getting a higher education and if you have any needs for Bible verses or other things or resources check out the website we've got several resource links a bunch of videos that have been compartmentalized now on the website under the resource link that you can find hopefully the information that you're looking for I'm trying to do better at categorizing and resourcing the things that we're recording so that people can find these things easier and so they don't have to continue to repeat answers to the same questions again and again because that is very time good so I just don't have time for that so please check out the website before sending messages to ask questions and see if you can find some of these things there and I'll be producing more videos as we go but thanks again for tuning in see you next time bye bye