Soteriology - The Golden Chain of Redemption

While Brother Andy is passing out the handouts, if you'll take out your Bible and turn to Romans 8. One thing I am glad about being back down here, one, it's a little more intimate, but also I have Megadesk.

This is the teacher's favorite thing, to have this giant area to lay out my notes. If we ever redo the pulpit in the sanctuary, we're going to build one of these wide pulpits.

Yes, sir.

If you have your handout, you'll notice what we have been studying. We are in the doctrine of Soteriology, which is the doctrine of salvation. And we have gone through seven parts. Some of them took multiple weeks, so we've been in this now for several months.

We began by asking the question, saved from what? We are saved from the wrath of God. We talked about what it means when we use the word atonement. We talked about the extent of the atonement. We talked about common grace and special grace.

And then we looked at justification by faith alone. And we looked at the relationship between regeneration and faith, and the relationship between faith and repentance. Last week, we looked at the concept of adoption and union with Christ.

And tonight, we have come to the subject of the golden chain of redemption. Now, the golden chain of redemption is a nickname for a certain passage of Scripture. Very familiar to us is this passage, particularly verse 28.

So, we are going to read verse 28, and we are going to read down to verse 30. This has been known as the golden chain of redemption. And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good.

For those who are called according to His purpose. 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.

And those whom He predestined, He also called. Those whom He called, He also justified. And those whom He justified, He also glorified. May God add His blessing to the reading of His Holy Word. Tonight, we are going to finally talk about that doctrine that separates Calvinism from other theological systems.

Tonight, we are going to finally talk about predestination. As I said, we have spent well over a year looking at an overview of doctrine and theology. We have been in this study for well over a year. And we have been in soteriology now for two months at least, probably more than that.

And it is interesting that as a Calvinist, one of the things people will say, well, you are a Calvinist, all you ever talk about is predestination. I haven't mentioned it much at all, if at all. I have said a few things about election and God's choosing and God being sovereign and salvation, but I haven't used the P word.

But tonight is the night. And whether or not I am going to get through this whole lesson in one sitting, I don't know. But I will say, this is not something I tend to belabor. Because the doctrine of predestination causes enough people to cringe just by hearing the word uttered, much less sitting down and really diving into it.

But one of the things I like to remind people, because I have had people look me straight in the face and say, I don't believe in predestination. It is not in the Bible. And I say, can you read?

Now I am not being ugly, I am not being mean,.

But you may have a different understanding of what predestination means, but you can't tell me it ain't in the Bible. Because I literally just read it to you. And this is not the only place that the word comes up, but this is a place where the word comes up more than once.

Notice it says, Whom He foreknew, He also predestined. And then later it says, In whom He predestined, He also called. So we see the word predestined is used here twice in just three short verses of Scripture.

So based upon this, I would say to the immediate objection, and again, you guys know I put out a daily podcast, and I put our sermons on YouTube, I put our sermons on the internet. And what's interesting, I learned something this week that I didn't know.

Apparently, a lot of comments come in, and they don't go on the site. Because YouTube will filter them, praise God.

I didn't know it.

And I found the filtered comments, and oh boy! They were waiting for me to give approval to them. Oh my, I am glad. Because some of them were just ugly. But I remember a few of them. Predestination is not in the Bible.

Predestination is unbiblical.

Well, it just ain't so. But again, this is where things get complicated when you're discussing this with people. Because there are some who would say, Well, I know predestination is in the Bible, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

That's the more honest answer. When somebody says predestination is not in the Bible, that's not an honest answer because it's there. But someone might say, Well, predestination is in the Bible, but I don't believe it means what you think it means.

So what I want to share with you, and you'll notice in your handout, I've given you two blanks. I don't always give you blanks, but I gave you two blanks because I want to give you definitions. There are basically two perspectives that compete on the doctrine of salvation or, excuse me, the doctrine of predestination.

And it's typically known as Calvinism versus Arminianism. Sometimes it's known as Monergism versus Synergism. There's all kinds of different names. But for the sake of simplicity, I'm just calling it Calvinist and Arminian.

And if you're unfamiliar what that refers to, one is referring to John Calvin, who was the great reformer. He was the pastor of the Church of Geneva during the time of the Reformation, the 16th century.

And then a generation later, there was a man by the name of Jacobus Arminius, sometimes known as James Arminius. And he was a student of Theodore Beza, who was a student of Calvin. And Arminius had followers who believed in what he taught.

They were known as the Remonstrants. And there was this great debate between the two. Calvin and Arminius never met one another. There was never a debate between the two of them because when Calvin was teaching, Arminius was a child.

And so the idea that they ever met, that's not the case. But historically, the debate is between the Calvinists and the Arminians. And historically, where you would see this most in denominational distinctions is Calvinism is Presbyterian and Baptist, typically, at least the English Baptists of the 17th century.

And then you have the Methodists, the Wesleyans. They were Arminian, and proudly so. That was their position. And so from a historic perspective, you had the Calvinists who gave birth to the Baptists and Presbyterians.

And then, of course, the Arminians who gave birth to the Wesleyans and the Methodists, what became known as the Holiness Movement. A lot of Pentecostals follow that same line. In fact, the Pentecostal Church comes out of the Wesleyan Movement.

So there we have the short, very brief history. And I've taught on churches. You've all heard this before, so I don't have to spend too much time on it. But here's the two different views. Calvinists believe that God, before the foundation of the world, set His affection upon a remnant of humanity known as the elect.

I'll say that again.

God, before the foundation of the world, set His affection upon a remnant of humanity known as the elect. Therefore, this choice was made in eternity past. It was made before we were ever created. And it was not based on foreseen merit in us.

That's a very important Calvinistic distinctive. God did not look and see in us something worth choosing. But God made His choice based upon the counsel of His own will. That is the Calvinistic position.

The Arminian position. God, before the foundation of the world, set His affection on a remnant of humanity called the elect. And the word elect simply means chosen.

Is that good?

Okay.

Now the Arminian position. God, before the foundation of the world. Same beginning. God, before the foundation of the world.

That's okay.

Looked down the corridor of time. Saw the decisions that men would make. And chose them based upon their decisions. Notice the grand difference between the two. In one, God is the one. Well, yes. Yes.

But in one, God is the actor alone. And in the other, God is acting in concert with man. That's why we called it monergism versus synergism. Monergism means one actor or one worker. It comes from the root ergos in the Greek.

It means to work. Mono being the single worker. So a monergistic believes God is the only one who does the work. Synergism. And you've all heard the word synergy. Especially if you're in corporate America.

They talk about synergy and working together as a team.

And coming together and blending.

So the idea of synergy is that prefix syn means together. And ergos meaning work. It means God and man work together in the bringing about of salvation. And so it really is a very different model. In one, God is the sole worker.

In the other, God is working in response, if you will, to something that he knows man is going to do. And therefore, man plays his part. God plays his part. And this is often described in various ways.

But one of the ways that I've heard more often than you probably would expect. When people say, God has done this for you. And now it's time for you to do your part. Your part is to believe. God has voted for you.

The devil voted against you. And you have to break the tie vote. You get the deciding vote. Another one, a real famous one, is God did 99%. But you have to do the 1 which is to believe. So, again, it always falls back to your contribution and your participation.

It always falls back to a form of synergism. So Calvinism is monergism. Arminianism is synergism. Calvinism says, God, before the foundation of the world, set his affection on a remnant of humanity called the elect.

Arminianism says, God looked down the corridor of time, saw how men would respond, and therefore made his decision about who to choose. Now, of these two views, I will tell you, Arminianism is the majority report in American churches today.

In fact, it is often the only view that people are exposed to. The scenario usually goes something like this. A person is studying their Bible. He comes to a passage that uses the language of predestination.

He becomes confused and a little disconcerted. So he is intrigued and he goes to his pastor and he says, Pastor, this says God predestined. And the pastor says, wait, wait. What it actually means is God saw what you were going to do and that's why he chose you.

So don't think that that means God is choosing you on his own. You still play your part. And so there is a sort of an acquiescence. There is sort of a sense of trying to soften the issue. And I've heard that.

I've been told that.

You know, I have a degree from a seminary, and the seminary is a non-Calvinistic, well, they would call themselves traditionalist Baptist seminary. The problem with calling it traditionalist is this.

The traditional Baptists were Calvinists. It is not the Calvinists who have changed. It is the Baptists who have moved away from their roots. And this is certainly historic and can be proven. But as I said, that's the majority report is the position.

And they won't call it Arminianism. Oftentimes what they call it is the prescience view. Now the word prescience needs to be mentioned. And I'm going to use a board here. I'm going to bring it over here so maybe it will be in the shot.

I don't know. It doesn't really matter.

All right. I want to use a word. And the word is prescience. And if you're wanting to write it down, it's just spelled pre-science. So P-R-E and then the word science. Now, knowing that, what does the word science mean?

Knowledge.

So if the word science means knowledge, what does pre-science mean? Well, the prefix pre means before. So the word prescience is just another way of saying foreknowledge. So the prescience view is also known as the view of foreknowledge.

That the reason why God chooses you, or whoever, is because He saw what you were going to do. He had the knowledge of what you were going to do. And therefore, He chose you based on what He knew you were going to do.

Therefore, I ask again, is this the right understanding? You say, but wait a minute, the word foreknowledge is in the Bible. I mean, 1 Peter says, chosen according to the foreknowledge of God uses the word foreknowledge.

And so people say, there's the answer. That's the great salvation from the damnable heresy of Calvinism. It's just to know that God knew what you were going to do. Well, we're not there yet, but you're right.

You're two steps ahead. But no, I'm just trying to make the case that they're saying, is God knowing what you're going to do? And the Bible says He knows what you're going to do. The Bible says He knows all things from the beginning to the end, doesn't it?

The Bible says my days are fashioned before me, before there was even one.

God knows the day I'm going to die.

God knows the day I was going to be born. He knows if I'm going to be alive a year from now, two decades from now, or however long. God will not be surprised when I show up in His throne room. God will never be surprised about anything.

So does God have perfect foreknowledge? Yes, we can say yes. Yes, we should never, ever have a hesitation. If somebody says, well, don't you believe God knows what everybody's going to do?

Absolutely.

But my question back is, how does He know? Again, yes, you guys are both right. Yes, because the issue of God knowing the future is always a big question when I talk to it. Because people say, well, God knows what somebody's going to do.

And again, I sort of go into my Columbo mode. And I don't know if you remember who Columbo was. I wasn't old enough to watch Columbo, but I know who Columbo was. And he'd start asking those questions.

And he'd say, so what you're saying is, you know, he'd start asking. And I'd say, so what you're saying is God looked down the corridor of time, and He saw what you were going to do. So let me ask you this.

Does that mean that God is absolutely certain about who's going to be saved and who's not?

Yes.

Okay, okay. So we can agree on that, Mr. Arminian. God knows for sure how many is going to be saved. So let me ask you this. Does that mean that the number of those who will be saved is perfectly set?

They often don't want to go there. It's amazing. In fact, if you start with that question, they often say no. So is the number of people that are going to be saved perfectly set in the mind of God? You see, that's not a predestination question.

That's a foreknowledge question. So he either knows it or he doesn't. How he got there is irrelevant to the question. Is the number of people who are going to be saved set or not? And Arminian doesn't want to answer that because if the answer is yes, then the whole issue of why do we evangelize and all that goes away.

You see, foreknowledge is really the big issue. I remember where I was standing years ago. It was actually in the parking lot of another church. I was doing something with a fellow friend, and I was at their church, and it dawned on me that foreknowledge and the definition of foreknowledge and the understanding of foreknowledge is really key in whether or not you're a Calvinist or an Arminian.

Because for the Arminian, they say God looks down the corridor of time. He sees what you're going to do, and therefore he chooses. But that ain't what that means, and that's the problem. You see, the problem with the Arminian view is they have used the word foreknowledge to mean something that it doesn't mean.

I want to give you four things to consider, and they're already in your notes. Four things to consider. If you're reading with me, the object of the verb foreknew, the definition of the word foreknew, God's foreknowledge as a determinative action, as Mike already said, it determines the future.

It doesn't just passively take in information. And let me ask you another question you can ask an Arminian. Does God learn anything?

No, he doesn't.

God does not learn anything. He who knows all cannot know something that he didn't know before. Yes, that's true, and that's the point.

Can God learn?

When somebody says he looks down the corridor of time, and he sees what you're going to do and bases his decision on that, what they're saying is he had to wait until he saw what you were going to do and thus learn your actions.

That doesn't compute. Yes, their point, and again, I might be getting a little ahead of myself, but the whole point of Arminianism is God is reacting. Though it be previous in time, God is reacting to something he knows you're going to do.

The reason why he saves you is because he knows you're going to choose him. The problem with that, again, is it just ain't what it means. So we have the object of the word, the verb, the definition of the word, the fact that it is determinative, not passive, and finally, and we learned this a few weeks ago, faith is a gift from God.

That's always the death nail for the conversation. When I have the conversation with people, I say, but is faith from God or not? Some people say, no, faith is your contribution, and if you believe faith is your contribution, then you're on the train of Arminianism.

But if you understand that faith is a gift from God, did he give that gift to everyone? See, there comes the logical question. So let's look at the first thing. The object of the word foreknew. Going back to Romans 8.

It says, and we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. Verse 29, for those whom he foreknew, he also predestined. So right there we have two links in the chain.

Remember we said there's a chain? The first word is foreknew. That's where they get this idea, which we're going to come back and help understand. That's not what it means. But what's the next thing? It's predestined.

So in the order of action, which action came first? Foreknow. That happens first. What happens next? He predestined. Whom he foreknew, he predestined. Whom he predestined, what happened next?

He called.

I believe that's down in verse 30. Verse 30 says, and whom he predestined, he called. Then what's next? Whom he called, he justified. And whom he justified, he glorified. That's why we call it the golden chain of redemption, because there's five links in the chain.

Now this does not fully encompass all of the soteriological experience, because this doesn't mention atonement, union with Christ, or any of those things. It doesn't mention sanctification. There's a lot in the soteriological experience that it doesn't mention.

It's not intended to be a fully fleshed out soteriological explanation. The point here is the actions of God in eternity past that come to fruition in time.

Okay?

In eternity past, God foreknew. He predestined.

He called.

He justified. He glorified. Now these are actions that have a specific time in place. There was a time and place where we were called, and we received a call, and we were saved. We were justified. And there's going to be glorification in the future.

But God speaks of all of these in the past tense.

Why?

Because in time, God is not bound. Therefore, He can speak of something that will be as if it already has taken place. God speaks about something as if it's already happened, because in His economy, it's already done.

God is not bound by time. Therefore, when He speaks about our glorification... If I'm saved, my glorification is as sure as I'm standing here.

It's...

Yeah.

Yes. Yeah.

I've heard one other author, similar statement, say, God is as present with Abraham as He is with me. You know, and that's amazing. God is not bound by time as we are. You know, we're bound by past, present, and future.

God is not.

So, that's...

Yes.

So, when God speaks of glorification, in His economy, it's completed. So, we talk about foreknowledge and predestination. Notice this. Whom He foreknew. That is a verb. Very important here, because a verb has an object.

Right?

Think of it like this. If you say, I threw the ball, the subject is me, threw is the verb, the is the definite article, and ball is the object.

Right?

That's what's being thrown. So, this is an action on God's part. The reason why I bring that up, and I stress this every time I teach on this, the reason why I stress the action on God's part is when they talk about, well, God looked down the corridor of time and He saw what people were going to do.

That's not what this is saying. This is saying He did an action on behalf of someone, and the action is knowing. Now, let me just, for a second, put this into some perspective. What does the word know mean in the Bible?

When it comes from God to man. It means to enter into a relationship with, for instance, think about when Jesus said, on that day, many will come to Me and say, Lord, Lord, did we not do many miracles in Your name and cast out demons in Your name and do many mighty works in Your name?

And I will say to them, Depart from Me, I never knew you. The word know there, and notice it's also in the verbal construction, I never knew you. Meaning, I was never in a relationship with you. Does God know everything?

We've already said that. Does God know everyone? Then why does He say in Amos 3, verse 2, Israel have I known of all the nations of the world. Relationship, thank you. That's my point. That's my argument.

The word know, when God uses, especially in the verbal construction, to know or for knowing someone, that is an action of entering into a relationship.

Huh?

Yeah, and I'm going to get there. The idea of knowledge is the idea of God setting His affection on someone. Adam knew Eve and they bore a son. The word know in the Bible has all kinds of uses. But when it's God to man, it's in the subject of the relationship.

So, somebody says, this is God looking down the corridor of time knowing that they're going to choose Him. That's not what it means. What it means is God looking and seeing and choosing, not based on what I was going to do, but choosing to have a relationship with me.

Choosing to have a relationship with His people. And so I would say the word for know could be, and I've gotten a little flack on this, so I would be careful how I use language here. Because I'm not trying to change the word, I'm trying to flesh the word out.

I do believe the word for know could be understood as those whom God chose to love. Because the word know means to enter into a relationship with, and it's a relationship of grace and love, and therefore He made the choice to love.

And see, the thing is, if I said this about Israel,.

No one would have a problem.

If I say before eternity passed, God chose Israel, not because of anything they had done, but because He wanted to choose them out of all the other nations. Everybody goes, yay! And if I say God does that for individuals,.

People say, oh, no, no, no.

I say, well, what's the problem? Is it worse that God chose a whole nation of people rather than God choosing individuals? Nobody ever has an issue with God choosing Israel. You realize that there were a whole bunch of nations that did not receive the same blessings and benefits as Israel.

The high priest of Baal did not receive the same benefits as the high priest of Yahweh. And people don't have an issue with that.

Huh?

It's not personal. Yes, and it's Old Covenant, too. And they'll often say, well, that was the Old Covenant. But it doesn't change. Another thing to look at, too, is that all of these are verbs.

God does this.

He does the foreknowing.

God does this.

He does the predestining.

God does this.

He does the calling.

God does this.

He does the justifying.

God does this.

He does the glorifying. And as Dr. R .C. Sproul has said, if you put foreknowledge in this list as something we are doing, as God is responding to us, it runs against the list because God is the actor in all of these.

But if you put our action into number one, what you have done is you've read into the text something that it does not say. And that is called eisegesis. It's reading into the text something that the text does not say.

Now, as I said, when we think about the word foreknew, we have to consider that the object of the knowledge is the people. And again, I'm not trying to be polemic tonight. I'm not trying to be argumentative.

But I am thinking about this from the perspective of people who have asked me questions over the years. And people do ask me questions. Yes, Richard, are you going to get on to me for how I said eisegesis?

Yes. Yes.

Yes, and there are Methodist Calvinists, which are weird, but they're from the line of Whitefield. Whitefield was certainly a Calvinist. I thought you were going to give me trouble about how I said eisegesis.

I know, it should be eisegesis.

I know.

Well, let me read to you something that I think is very important. And this goes to the third thing. In Nelson's Bible Dictionary... By the way, Thomas Nelson Publisher is not Calvinistic. Thomas Nelson Publishers are very run-of-the-mill.

I mean, they're very evangelical, very basic. You're not going to... You know, for me to quote from Nelson's Bible Dictionary I think is me being fair. It's pretty run-of-the-mill. But listen to what it says about the word foreknew.

Defining this word. It is the unique knowledge of God that enables Him to know all events, including the free acts of people before they happen. God's foreknowledge is more than foresight. God does not know future events and human actions because He foresees them.

He knows them because He wills them to happen. God's foreknowledge is an act of His will. In Romans 8, 29 and 11, 2, the Apostle Paul uses the word foreknew to mean chosen or to set special affection upon.

The electing love of God, not foresight of human action, is the basis of predestination and salvation. That's from Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson's Bible Dictionary. That's on every pastor's bookshelf.

Believer's Bible Commentary. You have a copy of that, Jackie, because it's what we are required to get for our upcoming Old Testament course. Now, I don't like everything in that commentary because it's a little more dispensational than I am.

But I want you to hear what it says about the subject of foreknowledge. It says this, Some have tried... And again, I only bring this up because, again, it's a run-of-the-mill commentary. This isn't a Calvinist commentary.

But they can't get away from what the word means. Here's what it says. Some have tried to reconcile sovereign election and human responsibility by saying that God foreknew who would trust the Savior and that those are the ones whom He elected to be saved.

What's that position? That's Arminianism. They base this on Romans 8, 29, whom He foreknew He also predestined. And 1 Peter 1, 2, elect according to the foreknowledge of God.

Listen to this, though.

But this overlooks the fact that God's foreknowledge is determinative. It is not just that He knows in advance who will trust the Savior, but He predetermines this result by drawing certain individuals to Himself.

End quote. I remember when I first read that. It was at Lifeway. I pulled that commentary off the shelf and I went to Romans 8, 29. I just wanted to see what it said. And I read that paragraph and I thought, this is one of the best expressions of what this passage is actually teaching I've ever read.

God's foreknowledge is not passive. It is determinative. He knows the future because He determines it. That's huge. That's biblical. And that is what this is saying. And follow my logic. I know I'm over by time, but give me two more minutes and I'll close out.

But listen, follow the logic of this argument. Whom He foreknew, He predestined. What does predestined mean? It means He made a choice about their destiny beforehand. The word prohorizo in the Greek literally means it's the word for horizon.

And what is the horizon? It's the furthest point. It's the end. It means to determine the end from the beginning. That's what the word predestination means. The end is set in the beginning. So whom He foreknew, He determined what their end was going to be.

And therefore He called them. See, people say this. God calls everybody. Not according to this list. Because according to this list, foreknowledge and predestination precede calling. And therefore, if you want to say God calls everyone, you have to say God predestined everyone.

And if you want to say God predestines everyone, you've got to say God foreknew everyone. And if you want to say God foreknew everyone, you've got to say He predestined everyone, you've got to say He called everyone, then you've got to say He justified everyone.

Because the text clearly says whom He foreknew, He predestined. And whom He predestined, He called. And whom He called, He justified. And by the way, this is another reason, and we're going to talk about this next week, why we believe in eternal security.

Because whom He justified, He glorified. The same people in this category end up in this category. The same people in this category end up in this category. It's an unbroken chain. Whom He foreknew, He predestined, called, justified, and glorified.

This is the golden chain of redemption, and I think it is the absolute death nail for the Arminian position. All right, my time has come and gone. Let's pray. Father, thank You for our time this evening.

I pray that it has been fruitful and encouraging, and I pray that we would all be moved toward a closer understanding of who You are and what You have done. Lord, such a tremendous truth is hard for us to digest, Lord, so I pray that Your Holy Spirit would open our eyes, ears, and most of all, our heart to truly understand it.

In Christ's name, amen.