Plan of Salvation - Foreknowledge, Predestination, Foreordination — John Murray

O Lord, it is from Thee and from Thee alone that all resource comes, that all our strength is divine. And we beseech Thee that Thou wouldst supply all our needs according to the riches of Thy grace in Christ Jesus.

For His name's sake. Amen. Well, I was dealing with this passage from Romans 8. I began to deal with it. And the first question there in Romans 8 .29 is the meaning for Agnorim. Today, while you were in the back there, I figured somebody had come to the park.

If you don't hear me, you'll understand why. And just as a matter of protest, you see, you can just walk out. Romans 8 .29 for Agnorim. Yes.

Aren't you going to discuss Ephesians 1?

You discussed Ephesians 1? Yes. You did? I have done that last day to hold out. You are holding out. Ephesians 8 .29. And if I start with Romans 8 .29, that means that I finished Ephesians 1. So, you see, the first question in Romans 8 .29 is for Agnorim.

The Meaning of Foreknowledge in Romans 8

Quite a number of interpreters who have taken the position that Agnorim for the most part is used here in the sense of immediate foresight, pre-vision, pre-science. And, of course, there are instances in the New Testament where this verb is used in the sense of foresight, pre-science, knowledge in that diluted sense.

Acts 26 .5 and Peter 3 .17. You see, there must be in this instance some differentiation that you can't stand abstractly. And so those who believe that Ponginosko here refers to foresight, they have to apply some differentiating adjunct.

So they say that implied is God's foresight of faith. Frequently that is the way it is stated, whom God foreknew as believing. Sometimes stated in this way, foresaw as fulfilling the conditions of salvation, whom God foreknew as His own.

By the differentiation that is necessary to qualify or modify the phrase, it is thought therefore on this view that predestination is conditioned upon faith. Those who fulfill the conditions of salvation, and in that way, sovereign, unconditional, predestination is supposed to be eliminated.

Predestination, you can see, is conditioned upon God's foresight of faith. Now, it must be recognized that the rejection of this interpretation is required by any predestinarian interest. They say that God foresees faith in those who will exercise it.

He foresees whatsoever will come to pass, and it is in no way prejudicial to His sovereignty. He foresees who will fulfill the conditions of salvation. Prejudice and imprecience, prejudice, with any concern, all comprehending, prejudice, will deny or deny.

Does not in the least degree interfere, if you adopt this interpretation, does not in the least interfere with God's sovereign differentiation, because if it means that He foresees faith, it is the meaning that He foresees faith.

Faith as the Gift of God's Sovereign Grace

You must ask the question, whence that faith which He foresees, faith which He foresees? According to the teaching of Scripture, God sees this exercised according to Scripture by those whom God enables to believe.

In appeal to such passages as John 3, John 6, Ephesians 2 .8, Philippians 1 .29, and so it is created by God, generated from Scripture, and comes of what He has determined to generate. Therefore His determination to generate faith is foresight.

And since He does not foresee faith in all indiscriminately, it is because He has not determined to generate faith in all indiscriminately. Sovereign differentiation in anything. People are jealous, people are jealous for interpretation of one particular word, for debate, for the proper interpretation of one word, such as the word know.

If there are going to be consistent exegetes, they must be equally jealous for the teaching of Scripture with respect to the origin of faith. Try oneself so jealously with the meaning of one particular term in Romans 8 .29, if you are not going to be equally jealous for the proper interpretation of numerous passages which deal with the origin of faith, that it is due to God's generating grace.

And if it is due to God's generating grace, it is due to His sovereign grace. And since all do not have that grace, you are thrown back in inevitably. Sovereign differentiation. You want to go to that meaning of Freud?

No, all right. You don't reject it because of a predestination. If we are governed by a predestination, we are thrown back on it inevitably. There is no relief from God's sovereign differentiation by adopting this view of Freud.

I say it again, there is no relief whatsoever from God's sovereign differentiation by adopting this deluded meaning of Freud. I might say that a hundred times. Not a predestinarian interest that we are dealing with here, because a predestinarian interest is not in the least degree compromised, is whether this view is exegetically the most tenable.

Whether this deluded interpretation of Freud, no, is the most tenable exegetically. On issue. Exegetically, it is not. That Hottie whose proagnole condition simply stands Hottie, which all exegetes recognize must be personal.

I say we must assume that this differentiation, which is inherent in the cause in anything, is inherent in the very words themselves. Unless, inherent in the words themselves, unless there is a compelling reason to think otherwise.

It is very easy for him to supply it, but very rarely. And therefore we must assume that the differentiation is inherent in the clause itself, or particularly in the word itself. Compelling reason. Compelling reason for thinking otherwise.

Biblical Usage of Knowing as Covenant Love

When you take into account the usage of scripture, that term you know is called the receiving equivalent of the biblical usage. The scripture frequently had to chew quite on. There are no in a pregnant sense that means much more than intellectual cognition.

And there are numerous. Just let me give you a few. Beginning with Genesis 18 -19. Respect to Abraham. I have known him to the end that he may command his children that. I have known Abraham. Exodus 2 -25.

And God looked upon the children of Israel and God knew them. Psalm 1 -6. The Lord knoweth the way of the righteous. Psalm 144 -8. Lord, what is man that thou takest knowledge of him that thou knowest him?

Jeremiah 1 -5. I bore thee in the belly, I knew thee. Sanctify me a prophet unto the nations. Amos 3 -2. You only, referring to Israel, you only, have I known of all the nations of the earth. Hosea 13 -5.

Matthew 7 -23. 1 Corinthians 8 -3. Galatians 4 -9. 2 Timothy 2 -19. 1 John 3 -1. To give the most outstanding examples, I think he needs to tell you. Now, of course, there's differentiation in the very term.

God wouldn't have said to Abraham, I have known, said of Abraham, I have known him, if it were simply intellective cognition. Because in the sense of intellective cognition, he knows all equally, indiscriminately.

When it is said of Israel that God knew them, and looked upon them in their affliction in Egypt, and he knew them, it cannot be mere intellective cognition, because he knew the Egyptians just as well as he knew Israel from that point.

Well, just take Amos 3 -2. It says, Amos 3 -2, you only have I known of all the families of God, ignorant intellectually, cognitively, of all the families of the earth, except Israel, in a differentiated defense.

You only have I known. Right through, it is said, I never knew you, depart from me, workers of iniquity, without which there would be final judgment. I never knew you, depart from me, workers of iniquity.

Intellectually, cognitively, all he had to, otherwise he wouldn't have conspired to do it. It's differentiation. Well, it's simply a blatant fact that this term belongs to what it seems to be, but it's differentiation in its very connotation, for it means to set regard upon with peculiar interest and affection, and is virtually the synonym of our English term love.

Amos 3 -2, you only have I known of all the families of the earth. You only have I loved with this peculiar love. An election could say, you only have I elected of all the families of the earth. Going back to the other passages in the text, it emphasizes that truth, that God did not choose Israel because they were greater in number or because they were better than other people, but he chose them just because he set his love on them.

You have that refrain in the passage. So when you come to Amos 3 -2, you only have I known, the meaning is clear. You only have I elected. Because they were better than other people, but he chose them just because he set his love on them.

You have that refrain in the passage. So when you come to Amos 3 -2, you only have I known, the meaning is clear. You only have I elected. For you only have I set this peculiar love. Good evening. But the whole point is that there is differentiation in the very term.

I frequently use things that narrow the point. Probably in old school, it was simply a compound. We move from Romans 11 -2 to the very same thing as you find in Amos 11 and Amos 3 -2. But God cast away his people whom he foreknew.

Foreknowledge, Election, and God's Eternal Love

But God cast away his people whom he foreloved. But God cast away his people whom he had elected in this peculiar love. This is simply a compound. Throwing back this knowledge, in this case, Romans 8 -29, the term comes from God.

That's the only difference. The meaning of genosko is not in the least degree interfered with by the prefixing of the preposition. And therefore you come back to Proverbs, Romans 8 -29. Why? This intensive force of genosko.

God his regard upon us from eternity. Whom God looked upon with peculiar interest and affection. Whom God foreloved. Whom God foreloved. May I emphasize again that this is simply an exegetical consideration.

Purely exegetical on the basis of Biblical usage. It's not because we have a predestinarian interest that we're after this. Purely an exegetical interest. But there is a preponderant consideration in favor of the view that the differentiation is in the very clause itself.

Differentiation is in the very clause, in the very term. There is not only this usage of the term. There is not only the consideration that Paul has no qualifying action and therefore assumes that the differentiation is inherent in the very term.

You do have, nevertheless, the considerations derived from the context in support of this interpretation. Considerations derived from the context. Namely, that in every other link this golden chain, every other link of this golden chain, comparing to foreknowledge and destination, calling, justification, glorification, Romans 8 -29 and 30, in every other link of this golden chain, the accent falls upon the determinative action of God.

The Golden Chain of Salvation and God's Determining Action

The determinative action of God in predestination, in calling, in justification, and in glorification. In every other instance it's the action of God and of God alone. Not only the action of God and of God alone, but it's his decisively determinative action on the part of God and of God alone.

God alone predestinates and he actively predestinates. God alone calls and he actively calls. God alone justifies and he effectively justifies. It's an irrevocable justification. God alone glorifies and he effectively glorifies.

Now we would expect, wouldn't we, that that same emphasis upon the determinative, originative action of God would appear in pro-egno. As well as in predestination, calling, justification, and glorification.

We would expect, we wouldn't expect that this emphasis upon the determinative action of God, and the effectively determinative action of God alone, would be reduced at this point, at the inceptive point.

There is in Romans 8 .28, a notification that we dare not expect that there is any dilution at the point of pro-gnostic. Romans 8 .29 is a summary statement, a summary statement of what you have expanded in verses 29 and 30.

We called according to purpose, called according to purpose. What our attention is directed to in Romans 8 .29 is the determinative purpose of God as the pattern after which no word in the whole of Scripture, and more particularly, no word in all in literature, emphasizes the determinative purpose of God more than that word purposes.

When it is called according to purpose, the action falls upon the thoroughly determinative purpose of God in accordance with which calling takes place. And then verse 29, or verses 29 and 30, are an unfolding of the elements, an unfolding of the elements implicit in that brief thought called according to purpose in verse 28.

And foreknowledge and predestination are an unfolding of the elements in purpose, of the elements that embrace in purpose. And we dare not give to either of these elements that is less determinative and belongs to power.

Foresight of faith, foresight of faith are two diluted measure of that to the end. All you have here is not foresight or knowledge that makes difference to existence. But a foresight that recognizes the foreknowledge that determines.

Fully such is the concept which the usage of Scripture demonstrates for a distinguishing love. The text of the preceded prepositions taught, the text of that is simply to throw back where according to the context it belongs.

From Foreknowledge to Predestination

Eternal purpose. That's all. Now we come to the predestination of all of this. What he who foreknows, foreknows. He also did predestination of all of this. Thought of him so as to have a clear perspective into predestination.

It is obvious that there is a certain progression of thought he did here. He would never have added I before then unless there were implicit in the action denoted an additional element of truth in an element.

To interpret foreknow, to interpret foreknow in this fragment state, in acting love, there is no longer any distinction between foreknowledge and predestination. There is no longer any distinction that you have to adopt a diluted interpretation of foreknow in order to allow the addition of truth belonging to predestination.

The point of exit is the most amazing concept.

My civil exit is to be a brother.

Where the distinction lies on the very thesis of the text. He was that much.