Foreknowledge - Part II

INTRODUCTION

^NAU Romans 8:28-30 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. ²⁹ For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; ³⁰ and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Our initial question from part one of our studies on the doctrine of foreknowledge was: Does something occur because God foreordained it to happen, or did God foreordain it to happen because He foresaw that it would happen? We already learned in part one that God has exhaustive, infallible, foreknowledge of all past, present, and future events and we then tried to understand the relationship between foreordination, foreknowledge, and actual events. In part II of this study, we will briefly examine the heretical views of divine foreknowledge.

TEACHING

I. How Does God Know?

A. Both Reformed and Catholic theology that follows Thomas Aquinas accepts that there are two kinds of knowledge in God. First there is necessary knowledge. This has two parts to it. In the first part, God knows everything about Himself (1 Cor. 2:11). He is perfectly and infinitely self-conscious. He knows Himself uniquely and primarily.

B. In the second part (which some think is a second division of God’s knowledge), God knows all possibilities of things outside of Himself. He has perfect knowledge of all theoretical possibilities as we mentioned in part one. He knows them directly from within His own perfect mind. These possibilities are still possibilities, but He necessarily knows them all exhaustively and perfectly (cf. Matt. 11:21-23).

C. The second kind of knowledge in God is what is known as free knowledge. Out of the vast storehouse of possibilities, God has foreordained via His eternal decree that only some will become actual. Only God can actualize a thing; nothing actualizes itself anymore than something can come out of nothing by itself. So, the order is that God knows all that can happen, foreordains that some of them will infallibly come to pass, and then foreknows them as certainly occurring. Charles Hodge put it like this: “Being the cause of all things, God knows everything by knowing himself; all things possible, by the knowledge of his power; and all things actual, by the knowledge of his own purpose.”

II. The Theory of Middle Knowledge.

A. Now it is precisely at this point that sinful men begin to cry out against this doctrine the loudest. So they have invented several theories to escape the Biblical teaching that absolute foreordination precedes absolute foreknowledge. Perhaps the most popular is the theory of Middle Knowledge (Scientia Media), or Mediate Knowledge. Its roots go back to ancient Greek philosophy, but it was more precisely formulated in the 16^th century by Jesuit theologians, especially Luis Molina. They came up with a theory to oppose the prevalent theory of the Dominicans (such as Aquinas), whom they envied; and also to counter the Reformers, who unflinchingly taught absolute foreordination and foreknowledge. Later, the theory became accepted by many Lutherans and almost all Arminians.

B. The theory says that “Middle Knowledge” is between “Necessary Knowledge” and “Free Knowledge”. Basically, it says that God foreknows because He foresees the free and unimpeded acts of men. This assumes that for men to be morally responsible beings there can be no divine interference. Richard Mueller gives the following definition: “Middle knowledge is a conditional and consequent knowledge of future contingents by which God knows of an event because of its occurrence . . . Such events are outside the divine willing.”

C. The theory of Middle Knowledge has been rejected by all orthodox Calvinists. Louis Berkhof wrote, “It is objectionable, because it makes the divine knowledge dependent on the choice of man, virtually annuls the certainty of the knowledge of future events, and thus implicitly denies the omniscience of God.” Middle knowledge contradicts both absolute foreordination and absolute foreknowledge.

III. Various Theories of Limited Omniscience and Foreknowledge.

A. Jerome said that it was absurd to lower the divine majesty by asserting that “God knows how many mosquitoes are born each single moment and how many die; how many bugs, fleas and flies there are in the world; how many fishes swim in the water, and how many of the smaller ones should constitute a meal for the bigger ones.” But sadly, the early church father Jerome sounds too much like our post-enlightenment modern skeptics and atheists. Scripture often says that God knows all about and cares for all the animals (Psa. 36:6; 90:11; 104:27; Matt. 6:26, 10:29, etc.).

B. Aristotle, Cicero, Marcion, Origen and others denied omniscient foreknowledge because they could not harmonize it with autonomous libertarian free will. They assumed that human responsibility means that God cannot interfere. Later, the Socinians said that God knows all that is knowable, but human acts are not knowable in advance because they are by nature neutrally decided and totally free (contra the total inability of man per John 6:44; 8:44; Rom. 8:7-8, etc.). The decision of free will cannot be predicted with total accuracy by anyone, including God. But, as we learned earlier, the Scriptures expressly and repeatedly state that God knows with perfect knowledge all things that have come to pass and all things that will ever come to pass.

C. Process Theology. This heretical theology more or less began with the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead and has been developed by the pseudo-theologian Charles Hartshorne. Process Theology denies absolute foreknowledge by denying that God has absolute omniscience. This theory says that God is in the “process” of growing, evolving, learning, and developing with the rest of the created universe. Otherwise, they say, if God has perfect knowledge then He is stagnant. And so, absolute omniscience would be cosmic stagnation, according to the Process Theologian. So, who knows what will happen next? Well, according to the Process Theologian it can’t be God because He can only make an extremely accurate guess. This silly theory hardly requires refutation. The truth is that God is perfect in knowledge, perfectly perfect in all He is. And being perfect, He cannot be “stagnant”, does not change, and does not experience going through any “process” of development, either by way of increased knowledge or otherwise.[1]

D. Sowing the Seeds of Open Theism: There are several other varieties of Arminian theories which deny absolute foreknowledge. Most of them are but variations of the Middle Knowledge view. One of them is known as semi-Socinianism. It posits that God knows all things. But the future is not a thing. Therefore God does not know it since; technically it doesn’t exist because it’s not a “thing” per se. He can, however, make increasingly accurate predictions because new things are happening every day to add information which increases the probability that God will make accurate predictions future events. The more moderate exponents of this nonsense say that God foreknows the future with virtual but not actual certainty. In other words, God has very good foreknowledge, but not perfect and absolute. There is still a slight chance that something else will happen. There are more extreme exponents of this view that enjoy the supposed adventure of what should really be called blind fore-ignorance.

E. Open Theism: A more popular Arminian theory is growing in evangelical ranks, namely the theory of an “Open God.” A Seventh-Day Adventist named Richard Rice has published a little book entitled The Openness of God; in the second edition, it has been retitled as God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will. Eight of the nine chapters have the terms “open” or “openness” in their titles. Rice and his followers capitalize on the unsavory connotations of the term “closed”. And we certainly don’t want a God that has a “closed mind”! No, he says, God has an open mind. In fact, this leads directly into Process Theology, for it implies that God also has an open nature that is subject to change. This in turn is related to the Barthian heresy which distorts the independence of God to such an extent that God is free to become His opposite. But can the Lord ever become imperfect in knowledge and still declare Himself as being “perfect in knowledge”? (Job 37:16)

F. And then there is yet another heresy of limited foreknowledge. An example is a chapter by Clark Pinnock in the volume of four essays entitled Predestination and Free Will. The title of Pinnock’s essay tells it all: “God Limits His Knowledge.” There is supposedly something wonderful and glorious about the idea of God playing cosmic peekaboo, sometimes choosing not to know some things, and sometimes choosing to know other things. Pinnock slightly differs from the theory of Middle Knowledge by suggesting that God’s foreknowledge is limited by Himself and not by anything external to Himself. But Pinnock betrays his frequent similarities to the heretical Process Theology, even by his own admission. But no heresy is really new. There was a philosophic form of this theory long before Pinnock and his crowd. Charles Hodge dismissed it with a cogent rebuttal: “But this is to suppose that God wills not to be God; that the infinite wills to be finite.”

G. Lastly, there is a Barthian theory that runs like this. Jesus didn’t know the day of His return (Matt. 24:36). Therefore, He was not omniscient nor did He have absolute foreknowledge. Moreover, “God” is exactly what Jesus is. Therefore, God Himself does not know the future as such. Now this theory totally contradicts itself, as well as the very Scripture it quotes. Matthew 24:36 says that only the Father knows. Therefore, the Father has absolute omniscience and foreknowledge. It is very important to point out that this statement was made while Jesus was existing in his humble, incarnational pre-glorified state as the God-man (cf. Phil. 2:5-11). So, what about the Son? In His humanity – which by nature was finite – Jesus was not omniscient. He had to grow in knowledge and wisdom (Luke 2:40, 52). Yet in His divine nature, Jesus knew all things (John 2:24-25, 6:64, 16:30; 21:17, etc.).

CONCLUSION

The heretical theories put forth by heretical Arminian theologians and secular philosophers can’t even come close to refuting the robust biblical teaching of God’s exhaustive infallible foreknowledge. Not only is this doctrine untouchable from a biblical perspective, but when comparing the biblical teaching to the false philosophies and ideas brought forth by heretics and secularists, it is quite evident that man always desire to dethrone God, control Him, and enthrone himself as the king of his own universe. What better place to start than with the doctrine of God’s knowledge? And so, we’ve seen that all of this detailed study about foreknowledge is important and necessary because if you misrepresent it, carry it out to its logical conclusion, then you end up constructing an idol, and as Calvin said, man’s mind is a notorious idol factory. In summary we can say this: If this is not true then God is not God. But it is true, for the Lord is God, and awesome are His works! (Psa. 66:3)

^NAU 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." ²⁰ Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

---

[1] This of course does not refer to Jesus in His humiliation and incarnation, where as a young boy He “kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” (Luke 2:52) However, preincarnationally and post resurrection, He was and is omniscient, as is the rest of the Godhead.

How Many Unitarians Does It Take....?

To be the ACLU's complainants against the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners? Three, according to the Winston-Salem Journal today.

So now we know that the three complainants in the upcoming case on "sectarian prayer" in Forsyth County, NC are all members of the same church, the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Winston-Salem. Why am I not surprised? This is the same group that claims to be tolerant of everybody, but apparently these three persons and the leader of the congregation don't believe that people should be allowed to pray according to the dictates of their consciences @ the County Commissioners meeting. Further, Rev. Davis has said, according to the Winston-Salem Journal, that his conscience won't allow him to offer prayers to specific deities if he prays in such a public setting. The self-stultification meter should be ringing off the scale.

What's of interest here is what isn't said. Rev. Davis does not believe that Jesus is God. In fact, he's a liberal theist at best, and thus the god of his conscience is the generic, nameless god of "non-sectarian prayer." Rev. Davis has put himself in the position of advocating that he be allowed to pray according to the dictates of his conscience while Christians and others are disallowed.

One letter to the editor in this past week's journal echoed the sentiments of many who think that Christians here should just suck it up, after all, is our God so small that the Christian can't just sit silently under the prayer offered to the generic nameless god and that be enough? The Christian can just use that prayer to pray silently to God, right? The same for the Jew, right?

Uh-huh. The problem here is that this objection cuts both ways. Is the liberal's conscience or the atheist's conscience so small that he must feel offended if somebody says "Jesus" or "Allah" in a prayer? Why must the Christian, the Jew, Hindu, or Muslim be the one to suck it up and take one for the team?

At present, Rev. Davis can pray to his generic god or offer a moment of silence. Steve Corts can use the words "in Jesus name," or pray to the Holy Trinity if he chooses. Rabbi Strauss-Cohn, whom the Journal will not reveal serves a Reformed - not an Orthodox or Conservative - synagogue can pray to God as he chooses. A priest from a high Catholic church can pray in Latin. A Buddhist can chant if he chooses, etc.

But if the three Unitarian Universalists the ACLU has found to complain about the use of a deity's name - whatever deity that might be - the rest of us would be told that we have to suck it up and pray to the god of the Unitarian Universalists who happens to be the nameless, generic god of non-sectarianism. This, folks, is just emperor worship by another name. We're being told how to pray by the state, specifically what forms of address are appropriate. What's in name? Look through Scripture and look @ what God says about His name. Saying "God" for the sake of invoking some god, any god, whatever god is in the minds of those in the room, is not invoking the name of any god at all. Nobody worships this god, well, except for Rev. Davis and his group.

That said, let's not forget that "in Jesus' name" as it's been abused by Christians around here is not mandated in Scripture. It isn't a magic postscript to be attached to the end of every prayer. The supporters of the Alliance Defense Fund would do well to remember that. This issue should bring those congregations and their members to reevaluate the terms of address for God. God is the God of the covenant in which He has placed us in Christ. To invoke His name is a serious matter - a fact the ACLU's supporters are ignoring - which is why we here who support the ADF feel so strongly about this matter. To say "in Jesus name" as a postscript with regularity is a habit, a tradition, that has accreted around prayer in the modern church, and it qualifies as "word magic," a violation of the Third Commandment if employed without meaning or as a political weapon to use to make a point. Some of the folks @ the Forsyth Commissioners meeting who used this phrase in their prayers recently were using it as such and they should be rebuked for doing so.

To pray in Jesus' name is to pray in harmony with God's moral will, His purposes, and His character. Some of the local pastors in this area need to get off their politicking in this area and teach their people how to pray rightly. Christians here shouldn't be surprised at this event, not simply because of the state of our nation, or the pervasive pestilence of liberal theology emanating from Wake Forest's divinity school, the UUF, and a great many churches here, but because this is just recompense for violating the Third Commandment ad infinitum in their own prayer closets. This is a wake up call in that regard.

No doubt some skeptic will read this and invoke Matt. 6:6, as some letters to the editor have already done. To head off that objection, they should read a standard commentary before invoking it. Jesus is commenting on the Mosaic Law's intention. Since the Mosaic Law allowed for public prayer and was the Law of the theocratic nation, it can't very well be construed as a blanket prohibition against all prayers in public. Jesus did not contradict the Law. Rather what is prohibited is the tradition of the Pharisees who prayed to garner the attention and accolades of the people as they went to the Temple or in the Temple courts, not to God from the heart. Their prayers were self-aggrandizing, not self-effacing.

What about "judge not that you be not judged?" Sure, let's talk about that. The next sentence tells us not to cast our pearls before swine. If the previous sentence prohibits all judgment, then pray tell how can you know what to cast your pearls and when not to do so? I might add that the Sermon on the Mount is a straightforward republication of the Mosaic Law itself, intended to correct the traditions of the Pharisees and point to a greater reality, that Jesus is the Law Personified, and to get to the heart of the Law, its intent, not merely the letter. Thus, it's rather humorous to see atheists and skeptics denigrate the OT Law while invoking the Sermon on the Mount in favorable fashion. Truly, they know not what they do.

It's also a clear case of the Unitarians' irrational and self-contradictory thinking, for in the name of tolerance for everybody they impose their standards on everybody else.

Here is the header for their church on their own website:

A welcoming community that respects individual freedom of belief.

This is a boldfaced lie. Somehow I doubt a Reformed Baptist or group of them would be welcomed in their congregation. They don't seem to tolerate the individual's right to address god as he or she sees fit in public setting. So much for individual freedom of belief.

Rev. Davis is allowed to pray to the god of his conscience but Steve Corts or Gary Chapman are not allowed to pray to the god of their conscience by name. You see, Davis' god has no name, and presumably this is the same god of his congregants, so when Davis prays to the god of non-sectarianism, he is praying to his god, since that is the god his group claims to worship. The Journal does not tell its readers this information. These Unitarians wish not only to be allowed to pray to their god as they see fit if asked to come to the meeting to pray - a right they already enjoy - but to force everybody else to pray to that same god as they do and pretend that its the same god as YHWH, Christ, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus or whoever else. Also, the supporters of the Alliance Defense Fund are not saying only Christian prayers should be used, contrary to what some of the letters to the editor writers in the Journal have thought. They are fighting for the right for anybody who prays, if there is a prayer at all, to do as they see fit, including the rights of atheists to offer moments of silence. This is precisely that for which Baptists fought in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Let's take a look at the church's own statements from here: http://www.uufws.net/introduction/faq

Do Unitarian Universalists believe in God?
Some do and some do not. We are more concerned that a person's beliefs result in caring for other human beings and the earth.

Are Unitarian Universalists Christian?
We have expanded upon our Christian heritage to embrace the positive aspects of many world religions and philosophies. Some UU's identify themselves as Christian, some identify as Humanist, Jewish, Earth-Centered, Buddhist or other Philosophy.

Is Unitarian Universalism a cult?
No. The Universalist Church was founded in 1793, on the premise that God's love was strong enough to save all people. The Unitarian Association was founded in 1825 on the premise that God is one. The two denominations merged in 1961. We are NOT affiliated with the Rev. Sun Yung Moon, of the Unification Church.

Do Unitarian Universalists pray?
Yes, each in their own way. They also meditate or just think things through.

Okay, let's put these to the test. Perhaps they are complaining because the feel excluded by the use of a specific deity? If so, then that's more self-contradiction. If the generic god they wish to pray to can be used for any god at all, and the Christian, Muslim, or Jew should edit out the offense, why is it that they shouldn't have to do the same if a specific deity is mentioned? If I have to take one for the team, they should too. If the Unitarian god is so open-minded that their congregation supposedly welcomes anybody and everybody, then in theory, according to their own statements, I should be able to go there as a Christian and not be offended. In fact, their god is supposedly my god too, since all paths lead to this god, since "God is one." Why then the offense? If all paths lead to god, whatever his name, then invoking Jesus' name isn't excluding anybody, it's just one name of many. They support the right of individuals to pray in their own way - except when they invoke a specific deity it seems. What's more, this is a group of relativists, so what non-arbitrary warrant do they have for being offended? The law? The law excludes the exclusion of religious groups and the use of one groups prayers to the exclusion of others. It does not permit the Commissioners to choose only Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. to pray, and nobody is arguing that only one group is allowed or one form of address is permissible. The law permits a rotation of religions. To tell a man or woman how to pray is an attempt to legislate the first table of the Law, the very sort of thing John Leland, the most famous Baptist who fought for religious liberty, fought against.

We have here illustrated the irrationality of liberal theology and agnosticism. We have here illustrated the irrationality of those who wish to be free thinkers - as long as you think the way they think.

Giving Up Christianity In Order To Defend Christianity? - Part II

What follows is part of a dialogue that I’m having with a fellow brother in Christ that believes it’s fine and dandy to give up Christianity in order to defend the God of Christianity. My responses will seek to humbly but directly challenge his assertions. His responses are in black font, with mine followed in blue.

___________________________________________________________________

I would have to respectfully beg to differ with you all, in particular, with [Dusman’s] statement that this exercise could be "sinful or immoral." First, let me preface what I am about to say with a few caveats.

(1 ) I may be misunderstanding what Kirk and Ray are trying to do, but according to the information given, they are merely challenging the atheists' assertions that God doesn't exist. Now, I have never listened to Ray's talks at Yale about the existence of God. But I would respectfully disagree with the assertion that proving the existence of God by general revelation (that's what Ray and Kirk are going to do, that's what it means, to not use the Bible or faith, is basically to argue by general revelation) is immoral or sinful. General revelation does this every day to every unbeliever, proving the Lord's existence. Therefore, it cannot be a sinful exercise for Kirk or Ray to do so.

I. The apologetic tact they are employing is sinful because (1) the parameters of the debate they have foolishly agreed upon do not defend the existence of the biblical God but only uses arguments that could easily be used to defend an extremely nebulous concept of “god” that could just as well be Zoroaster, Zeus, Allah, or one of the infinite numbers of supposed gods presupposed by the theosis doctrine of Mormonism. Worse yet, this “god” wouldn’t have to necessarily be theistic (especially since Comfort and Cameron cannot make any reference to their “faith”), but could simply be merely super-intelligent extraterrestrials that have created advanced life and have seeded the planet earth in the distant past. (2) And so, their evidential approach willingly avoids (per their own words) doing the very thing that they, as Christians are commanded to do, namely, “earnestly contend for the faith (versus giving it up) once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3), and “sanctifying Christ as Lord in your hearts” as the necessary foundation for appropriately providing your rationale for the hope that abides in you (1 Peter 3:15).

II. General revelation (as per Romans 1) does not prove the existence of some nebulous concept of a god, but proves that the ton theon (“the God” cf. Rom. 1:21 in Greek) of Scripture exists and that they have absolutely no excuse because they intuitively *know* that He exists:

Romans 1:19-21 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ²¹ For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened..

Paul says that the creation reveals God’s existence, eternal power, and divine nature, and wrath against suppressors of said truth (Romans 1:18-20). His primary point in Romans 1 is not that unbelievers are ignorant of God’s existence and simply need to be educated via the traditional proofs and historical evidences, but that unbelievers do already in fact know about God and will intuitively recognize His creative power in nature. However, as God-haters, they will sinfully suppress the truth and knowledge that they already have about Him and as a result, they will be judged for it, regardless of their lack of special revelation. Of course, this general revelation about God does not show man the way of salvation, the Trinitarian nature of God, and other necessary doctrinal truths. I heard a preacher accurately expound on this text once by saying, “Every unbeliever has enough knowledge to damn him, but not always enough to save him . . . this is why we have to send missionaries.”

Nevertheless, Paul’s commentary in Romans 1:18-22 shows that all unbelievers know intuitively that God exists and that this knowledge is sufficient in and of itself to condemn them to hell. The knowledge that they possess intuitively consists in His wondrous power in creation and their moral responsibility to Him (Rom. 1:19-21). The strange theories that they concoct about the origin of the universe and man serves as further corroborating evidence that they are truth suppressors hell-bent on escaping their own moral culpability (Rom. 1:22-23). Thus, for Comfort and Cameron to assume about the atheist the very thing that the word of God denies him is to deny what Paul clearly teaches about that same type of person as outlined in Romans 1.

(2)Another caveat - The point of the Kirk's and Ray's exercise, as I understand it, is not to share the gospel. The point is to challenge these atheists' assertions that God doesn't exist. So, to address _____ concern, I would agree, to be faithful to the Gospel, of course, we want to share from the gospel. But that is not the point of the exercise, in fact, ABC would not have given the venue for that discussion.

I. This is a good opportunity for us to learn that we should never let the unbeliever dictate to us how we are to preach and defend Christianity. We cannot and should not let the unbeliever define what evidence is acceptable versus what isn’t. Again, we don’t ask them to give up their atheism to defend their atheism. Moreover, it is foolish for us to do the same by entering the public debate forum in the name of Jesus Christ and allow them to set the parameters of debate so that we can merely “show up” and use the same arguments that can be used to defend the existence of what could just as easily be Zoroaster, Hercules, or super-intelligent space aliens. Worse, I fear that it displays the naïveté of believers even more when they braggingly say that they can defend the existence of God without making any reference whatsoever to the very worldview that provides the philosophical cash value for the very possibility of “proof” in the first place!

II. If it is true that ABC would not let Kirk and Ray make reference to their Christian worldview in order to defend their belief in the existence of the Christian God (which I somehow doubt it given Ray’s tact in the past of braggingly saying, “Hey, I can prove that God exists without the use of a Bible or by making mention of my faith!”), then ABC would have to take a hike and that would be so much the worse for ABC.

In conclusion, simply defending the supposed existence of any ole’ god won’t do. We are called to earnestly contend for “THE FAITH once for all handed down to the saints” by first “sanctifying Christ as Lord in our hearts” (Jude 3; 1 Peter 3:15). This is none other than a defense of Biblical Christianity. To defend anything else is a waste of time and even more, to willingly enter the debate arena claiming that you can defend the existence of God (assumed to be the Christian God) by making the audacious claim that you don’t need to rely on the very worldview that gave you the very conception of that God to begin with, is dishonest, and sinful. Sinful because it denies the very means commanded by God in Scripture to convert the lost (Rom. 1:16), sinful because it doesn’t proclaim the Christian God (Rom. 1:18-21), and sinful because it doesn’t earnestly contend for the Christian faith, the very thing we are commanded to contend for in apologetic encounters (Jude 3).

Foreknowledge - Part I

INTRODUCTION: The following consists of teaching notes from a two-part series on the doctrine of foreknowledge that I'm teaching in our Wednesday night discipleship classes titled, "Links in the Golden Chain of Redemption."

^NAU Romans 8:28-30 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. ²⁹ For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; ³⁰ and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Initial Question: Does something occur because God foreordained it to happen, or did God foreordain it to happen because He foresaw that it would happen? What is the relationship between foreordination, foreknowledge, and actual events? In this study, we will examine the subject of divine foreknowledge. In our last study, we looked at an overview of the Golden Chain of Redemption/Order of Salvation (8:29-30) and now we need to look at each link in the chain in some detail, beginning with the first link, foreknowledge.

TEACHING

I. The Omniscience of God

1. The Scriptures clearly teach the omniscience of God. Omniscience may be defined as “that perfection of God whereby He, in an entirely unique manner, knows Himself and all things possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act” (Louis Berkhof). Observe what the Bible itself says, “Boast no more so very proudly, Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; For the LORD is a God of knowledge, And with Him actions are weighed.” (1 Sam. 2:3). Job describes Him as “perfect in knowledge” (Job 37:16). 1 John 3:20 says, “God . . . knows all things.” Christ’s disciples confessed to Him, “You know all things . . .” (John 16:30, 21:17).
2. In John 2:24-25, we are told that Jesus knows all men and knows what is in all men. God knows all the thoughts (1 Chron. 28:9, Jer. 17:10, Heb. 4:13) and secrets (Psa. 90:8) of men. “I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them” (Ezek. 11:5). What could be more secret than human thoughts? If God knows them all, then He knows everything. David realized this in Psa. 139:1-6 and confessed, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me.”
3. But the best text is Psa. 147:5, “Great is the lord and abundant strength. His understand is infinite.” Literally, the Hebrew reads, “without number”. God knows everything!
4. There’s more. Several texts tell us that God not only knows everything about everything that exists, but He also knows everything that could exist but does not. He knows all possibilities, most of which will never be actualized. Jesus told what would have happened had Sodom and Gomorrah have heard the Gospel and seen His miracles (Matt. 11:21-23). Isa. 48:18, 2 Kings 13:19 and other texts also say that God knows what could have happened had certain circumstances been different. Therefore, God knows all that could have been but won’t be because it’s not part of His eternal decree.
5. God knows all details. God knows all things exactly as they are. He knows them in all their relationships. And He knows them immediately, or intuitively. He does not have to do research, nor does He require proof for anything. God just knows, period.

II. Absolute Foreknowledge

1. God’s nature never changes and His eternal plan for His universe never changes (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 7:21). If God now knows all things, then He has always known all things. That is a very hard concept to grasp with our finite minds, and I’m not really convinced that we can get our minds around it. It is wonderful to say that God knows everything now; it is even more wonderful to say that He knew everything before they existed. It is truly awesome to say that He has always known everything.
2. This is, in essence, what we mean by the term foreknowledge. Sometimes scholars use the terms prescience and foresight as synonyms for foreknowledge. They all mean that God has absolute knowledge of all things before they exist. Again, hear what the Scriptures say. God knows our needs before we pray (Matt. 6:8). Jesus knew from the beginning (eternity – John 1:1-3) who would not believe in Him and who would betray Him (John 6:64). Even Christ’s own crucifixion was eternally foreknown by God (1 Peter 1:20).
3. God knows all things with total certainty. He cannot doubt, nor be ignorant. God cannot but know all things as certain, otherwise He would not be “perfect in knowledge” (Job 37:16). Gordon Clark comments, “If God’s foreknowledge were not eternal, then he must have learned something at some time. And if he learned it, he must have previously been ignorant of it. And if he had been ignorant and learned something, why could he not forget some things after a while? However, God neither learns nor forgets.”
4. The crux of the matter is certainty. Absolute foreknowledge implies inevitability, and inevitability implies certainty. Certain knowledge requires certain facts. Certain foreknowledge requires that the things foreknown will certainly occur.
5. Look at Isaiah 46:10. The Lord points out that He is unique, “declaring the end from the beginning.” He declares because He knows. Since He declares all things from “the beginning” (eternity), then it follows that He foreknows all things from eternity.

III. Foreknowledge and Foreordination

1. But let us return to the original question: Does God foreordain something because He foresees that it will happen or does He foresee it happening because He has foreordained it to happen? What is the logical relationship between divine foreordination and foreknowledge? Having established that (1) God has foreordained all things from eternity, and (2) God has foreknown all things from eternity, the question is now: Which one logically precedes the other?
2. The answer is that foreordination logically precedes foreknowledge. Notice the order of Acts 2:23, “this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.” The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith says in section III:2, “Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions (Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18).”
3. Omniscience of the future is definite, not contingent. It is unconditional, not conditional, for God is sovereign. As was said, absolute foreknowledge requires that all things foreordained by God shall certainly occur. But what gives it that absolute certainty of existence? Itself? No, because if that were the case, then it would be uncaused by God. But God is the ultimate cause of all things. Therefore, it must be caused by God to be absolutely foreseen. If God foreordained on the basis of foresight of that which He did not foreordain, then God foreordains on the basis of the counsel of another. But Scripture says He foreordains on the basis of His own counsel, not somebody else’s counsel.
4. We are often told that we must submit all our future plans to God. We must say “such-and-such will happen ‘if the Lord wills’” (James 4:13-15). But God does not have to submit His plans to another. He foresees things because He foreordains them, and He foreordains them according to His own sovereign will.
5. So, if foreknowledge of a certain event preceded foreordination, the new have the unthinkable situation of the creation dictating to the Creator. If God merely foresaw something as definite and certain, could He do anything but foreordain it?
6. You will probably note that I have mentioned that there is a “logical order” to all of this. This is said after the manner of men. It is a logical order, not a chronological order, for we are dealing with eternity. God knows all things at once, in an instant, in one eternal now. Even so, there is a relation between foreordination and foreknowledge. Both are absolute and eternal. But there is a sense in which foreordination logically precedes foreknowledge. He foreknows because He foreordains, not vice-versa. This is the easiest way to summarize how foreknowledge works.

IV. Eternity and Foreknowledge

1. Obviously, much of the difficulty we have in understanding the doctrine of foreknowledge comes from our inability to grasp the concept of eternity. Now we cannot do a full study of eternity here, but a few important points are in order.
2. First, there is a sense in which it is correct to deny that God knows something “before” it happens. What is that sense? Simply this: God is not “before” something in time in the way in which we are. He is before all time itself, through all time, and even above it. God “inhabits eternity” (Isa. 57:17 KJV). He is the great “I AM” who lives at simultaneously in the past, present, and future. Jesus said, “before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). Note that He did not say, “I was”, but “I AM”!
3. God fills all of time, but is not limited to it. God fills all space, but is also infinitely outside of space. The same is true with time. God fills all time at once, but also is eternally outside of time. This is like a submerged cup – the water completely fills the cup, but the water also completely surrounds the cup. It gets back to the fact that space and time themselves are created by God.
4. So then, when Scripture says that God knew something “before” it happened, that is true. It is said “after the manner of men” to make a point and so that we can begin to grasp it. Calvin explained foreknowledge in this way: “When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things were, and perpetually remain, under his eyes, so that to his knowledge there is nothing future or past, but all things are present.”

V. Foreknowledge and Prophecy

1. Absolute foreknowledge is further illustrated in the area of prophecy. Now there are two types of prophecy in Scripture. First, there are conditional prophecies. Generally the conditions are mentioned by way of warning. For example, God through Jonah said that Ninevah would be destroyed in 40 days. The implied condition is repentance. When they repented, God forestalled the punishment (it later came). But then, at the back of this is God’s foreordination and providential gift of repentance.
2. The second type of prophecy is more prevalent. It is absolute prophecy. Phrases like “The thing shall surely come to pass” (1 Kings 13:32) are often found in this context. And after the prophesied event, we sometimes find expressions such as “And it came to pass according to the Word of the Lord.” Matthew especially records that such-and-such a thing came to pass in fulfillment of prophecy.
3. God is neither a weatherman nor a gambler. He doesn’t make predictions on a percentage basis of probability, but prophesies on the basis of certain foreknowledge. Prophecy implies certainty of occurrence and inevitability. This all gets back to divine foreordination and the “Godhood of God.” For example, Scripture frequently attaches a certain phrase to an absolute prophecy, namely “and then you shall know that I am the Lord.” Fulfilled prophecy proves absolute foreknowledge. This is a major theme of Isa. 41-48. For example, Isa. 48:3 says, “I declared the former things long ago.” That He prophesied perfectly proves He is God (cf. Isa. 41:22-23, 26; 42:9; 43:12-13; 44:7-8; 45:21; 46:10; 48:5-6).
4. Incidentally, this tells us at once that Satan has neither omniscience nor absolute foreknowledge. At best, he knows more than we do, and he knows his days are numbered (Rev. 12:12). He knows because it has been prophesied. And if Satan does not have absolute foreknowledge of himself, neither can we. That is why we must say “if the Lord wills”, except in those areas where God has revealed in the Scripture that certain things will occur, such as the Second Coming. But He has not disclosed to us the exact time.
5. In John 13:19, Jesus said, “I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He.” (cf. also 14:19) The Greek reads, “that I AM”. Thus, fulfillment of prophecy proves His deity. This demeans faith. Therefore, those who deny that God has absolute foreknowledge reveal their lack of faith in the real God. To deny absolute foreknowledge is to say that God is not God. Those who make such denials would do well to read Isaiah.

CONCLUSION

Is all of this detailed study about foreknowledge important and necessary? Doesn’t the whole question seem irrelevant? Aren’t we being doctrinal nit-pickers by even considering the whole question of foreknowledge? Is this like the old medieval debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The Calvinist answer is blunt and emphatic: No! IT is not an irrelevant matter. It is not a trivial question which only lazy theologians discuss. It does matter. Whether God foreordains on the basis of foreknowledge or foreknows on the basis of foreordination is of great importance. The slightest variation from the truth has great ramifications on other areas of theology, and eventually enormous implications on man and life. In summary we can say this: If this is not true then God is not God. But it is true, for the Lord is God, and awesome are His works! (Psa. 66:3)

Constitutional Abortion Rights

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/constitutional-abortion-rights.html

The Court gives and the Court takes away...

Giving Up Christianity In Order To Defend Christianity?

ABC to Air Live Atheist Debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort

When ABC ran a story in January about hundreds of atheists video-taping themselves blaspheming the Holy Spirit, Ray contacted the network and told them he could prove God’s existence, absolutely, scientifically, without mentioning the Bible or faith. He said that he and Kirk would like to challenge the two originators of the “Blasphemy Challenge” to a debate on the existence of God. ABC loved the idea. The debate will be filmed for Nightline in New York City, and will be streamed LIVE on their website on May 5, 2007. As you probably know, Ray has credentials for this debate as the author of God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, a speaker at Yale on the subject of atheism, and a platform speaker at the 2001 American Atheists Inc. annual convention. And Kirk, possibly the most highly respected ex-atheist in Hollywood, is the perfect choice to address the unscientific nature of Darwinian evolution. Please keep this event in your prayers. We couldn't be more excited about the opportunity! ___________________________________________________________________________________ With all due respect and appreciation to our evangelist brothers Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, they cannot and should not attempt to prove the existence of the Christian God by doing this: "Ray contacted the network and told them he could prove God's existence, absolutely, scientifically, without mentioning the Bible or faith." Now I truly appreciate the ministry of "Way of the Master" and have benefited greatly from the use of their evangelistic method (with some slight modifications) and find their ministry website very edifying and instructive. However, when it comes to defending the faith, you will never find believers in the Scripture purposefully avoiding the gospel message in order to defend and propagate that gospel message (cf. Acts 17). We cannot lay down the most powerful offensive weapon that we have when it comes to providing a defense, namely, the Scriptures (cf. 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3; and Eph. 6:17). To do so is to pander to the unbeliever and assume that he is morally neutral when it comes to the evidence for God's existence. Not only does Scripture declare that he is *not* morally neutral, but because his intellect, emotions, and will are affected by the fall, he can't even properly evaluate the historical and scientific evidences in the first place! (Rom. 1:18ff; 8:7-8). When it comes to defending the faith, 1 Peter 3:15 says that the first thing we are to do when providing an apologetic for the hope that is within us is to "sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts." when it comes to the validity and usefulness of taking an evidential approach to apologetics, Jesus Himself said to the rich man who was in hades, that the rich man's living brothers had the Bible of their day to listen to (the Old Testament) and if they didn't listen to Moses and the prophets, then they surely won't listen should somebody rise from the dead (cf. Luke 16:27-31). What better physical evidence than a resurrection from the dead? However, Somebody did rise from the dead, and even many who saw Him post-resurrection still didn't believe (Matt. 28:17). Scientific and historical evidences for the Christian faith are important and useful, but they can only be sufficiently useful to those who already assume the Christian worldview simply because they have been given eyes to see it. In sum, we cannot give up our worldview in order to defend our worldview. Would the atheist be willing to do that? Absolutely not, he's not that foolish. Giving up your most powerful weapon (a carefully wielded Bible combined with prayer - cf. Eph. 6:17) in order to defend the worldview it represents, is like going into heated combat behind enemy lines only to willingly and purposefully leave your armaments behind thinking that you can bring a sidekick and fisticuffs to a battle full of enemy RPGs, hand grenades, and 50 cal. machine guns. What would we call a soldier if he did that? We'd say he is insane. Is Mr. Atheist going to drop his precious neo-Darwinian theory and secular epistemology, metaphysic, & ethic in order to defend his secular views? Nope, and you can bet that Brian "Sapient" and the Irrational Response Squad will enjoy debating our Christian brothers, especially since they are the ones who have willingly limited the terms of the discussion such that only a non-Christian, non-saving, nebulous concept of "god" is defended. I'm not trying to be overly critical or harsh. I really do appreciate these brothers. But Ray Comfort has done this type of thing several times already, and worse, he has willingly agreed to do the very thing that Scripture commands us *not* to do, namely, willingly give up our Christian worldview in order to defend it. We cannot willingly go into the apologetic arena while agreeing beforehand to come without our Bibles or our Christian faith in order to defend that selfsame faith. To do so is foolish, irrational, and in my humble opinion, immoral.

Not By Works - Titus 3:5

INTRODUCTION (Read Titus Chapter 3)

My friends, it has often been said that the doctrine of justification by faith is the doctrine upon which the Christian church stands or falls. There is certainly a massive amount of truth contained in that statement. From the beginning of creation and after the subsequent fall of mankind into sin, the only means whereby a person could be made right before God was if and only if God Himself credited righteousness to the repentant believer apart from works. As Genesis 15:6 says in reference to Abraham, that “he believed in the LORD; and [God] reckoned it to him as righteousness.” In the same way that Abraham; even after listening to the call of God for him to leave Ur of the Chaldees, a man who still proved himself to be a liar and deceiver; it was that man who was declared righteous before a just and Holy God on the basis of his repentant faith and trust in God. So it was with Abraham then, and so it goes for the rest of the fallen sons of Adam throughout all of redemptive history, namely, that a man is justified by faith in Christ apart from works (Rom. 3:25-26; 4:1-22; 5:1ff; Eph. 2:8-9, etc.).

Thus, those who have found salvation and peace with God have come to appreciate the blessing of the doctrine of justification of faith alone because we have had our eyes opened to see that without Christ, all of our best works done with a sincere motive to please God are seen by Him as “filthy” menstrual rags (Isaiah 64:6)! The doctrine of justification by faith alone can be seen in one of those five Latin phrases known as the “Five Solas”; phrases which are used to summarize the teaching of the Protestant Reformation. Shepherd’s Fellowship of Greensboro is committed to upholding the Five Solas that drove the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century; and today, we have the opportunity to look at the fourth point of those five doctrines in Titus 3:5, namely, the doctrine of sola fide or faith alone. On our church website under the heading of Sola Fide (Faith Alone), we state the following:

We reaffirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.

We deny that justification rests on any merit to be found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ's righteousness in us, or that an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as a legitimate church.[1]

One of the most famous Protestant Confessions of Faith, the Westminster Confession, says the following under Article XI “Of Justification”,

I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.

III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf. Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.[2]

So why did the Protestant Confessions of faith go into so much detail regarding the doctrine of justification? Well, as most of you probably already know, the official Roman Catholic position denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The Roman Catholic Church holds to what is called in Latin fides caritate formata (“faith formed by love”); which is far removed from the Biblical teaching that justification is by faith alone (i.e., “justification by faith apart from works of righteousness”). Justifying faith, then, according to Rome is formed by love. This teaching was clearly confirmed at the Council of Trent in 1546. Rome’s dogmatic anti-faith alone position is clearly proclaimed in the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification:

Canon XI. – If anyone saith, that men are justified; either by the sole imputation of the righteousness (justitia) of Christ or by the sole remission of sins . . . or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God: let him be anathema (Canon XI; emphasis added).[3]

In one paragraph, the RC Church pronounces a divine condemnation (anathema) on the entire Protestant body of Christians. This was written in the middle of the 16^th century as an official response due to the Protestant view that a man is fully justified by faith alone or as the Reformers termed: sola fide. To be fair, Rome does see salvation from start to finish as the work of the triune God alone. However, justification before God (wherein a person is declared righteous before God) is not through faith alone by God's grace alone, but, as Rome teaches, salvation comes by faith plus the meritorious works that a person must do through participating in their sacramental system, which includes unquestionable devotion to Rome and religious veneration, adoration, and worship of Mary. And so, the issue of justification is and has been the fundamental and defining doctrinal difference between Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants.

In my conversations with Roman Catholics, some of them have asked me, “Where, does the Bible use the phrase ‘faith alone?’” Many Roman Catholics will frequently ask this question in their attempt to show that the Protestant position is false because the exact phrase “faith alone” and even the idea of being justified by faith alone do not appear in Scripture. However, such an argument simply does not follow, especially when phrases like “Trinity” and “incarnation” are not in contained in the Bible either. Are we then to assume that because those words are not in the Bible then the doctrines that they represent aren’t either? This same method of argumentation has been used by other religious groups that also deny the doctrine of sola fide, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

But what both the Romanist and the Jehovah’s Witness fail to understand is that the church has always used non-biblical terms, such as “Trinity,” to define or caudify those doctrines that are clearly derived from the exegesis of Scripture. For example, Scripture presents the Son of God as actually becoming flesh; and so, the phrase, “Incarnation” is the doctrinal word that the church uses to define the biblical data. The Jehovah’s Witnesses use the same argument for the Trinity naively stating: “Trinity is not in the Bible.” So the point is that the Protestant and biblical understanding of the doctrine of justification by “faith alone” simply means justification is by faith apart from additions or modifications to your justification by adding meritorious works to it. The very reason for the term “Protestant” was for the “protest” or objection against the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church that caused obfuscation as to the clarity of the gospel message, particularly as it relates to the doctrine of justification. And that brings us to a more ancient discussion, a biblical one that is found in Titus chapter 3, verse 5. Here, Paul instructs Titus to teach the doctrine of justification by faith apart from works to the Christians on Crete in order to counter the heresies of the Judaizers; those Jewish legalists who taught that a man had to keep the law of Moses and be circumcised in order to be saved and that faith alone in Christ was not enough. And so, we will look at Paul’s exhortation to Titus in chapter 3, verse 5 of this epistle under two main points:

1. God Is The One Who Saves Us (“He saved us . . .”).
2. We Do Not Save Ourselves (“not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness. . .”).

TEACHING/APPLICATION

Titus 3:5 is one of the most important and profound verses on the doctrine of salvation in all of Paul’s letters. The verse is packed with important concepts that help us understand the nature of our redemption. In verse 4, the apostle showed us why God saved us (“His love for mankind”), here in verse 5, he explains how He accomplished our regeneration.

I. God Is The One Who Saves Us (“He saved us . . .”).

^NAU Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

The word “saved”(e;swsen - an aorist active 3rd person singular from sw,|zw) is from a Greek word that is sometimes used in the New Testament to describe a physical, temporal deliverance (i.e., cf. Matt. 8:25; John 12:27), but it is used most often of spiritual salvation, and that is the meaning that Paul gives it here. This important word “saved” has the idea of being “rescued, delivered, spared” from God’s coming judgment. This is exactly what the question “are you saved?” means. When you are asking someone that question, you are asking them if they are saved by God from God! The tense of this verb (aorist) in this context shows that God’s action in saving us is an effective and completed action.[4] In other words, what God set out to do in saving His elect people in eternity past, He effectively accomplished in historical time by the effective power of the Holy Spirit working in regeneration. This is why you can’t add anything to salvation; simply because you can’t add to what God Himself has done!

So, the phrase “He saved us” indicates that salvation is considered finished and completed from God’s perspective, but for us, there is the final redemption of the believer in the glorification of His body, which occurs either by way of rapture or resurrection. New Testament Greek Scholar George Knight says, “The aorist tense of the verb, signifies that this salvation has already taken place and that it has delivered the Christians from what they were.”[5] The aorist tense records the past saving act; we now possess His salvation as if everything that it includes (including our resurrection and glorification) is already done, although it is practically still incomplete, awaiting its consummation at Christ’s return.[6]

Do you see why the words “saved”, “save”, and “are being saved” have always been cherished by those who have been saved by God from His own coming wrath? Our salvation is the most important and precious thing about us, to which nothing else can begin to compare because we know that not only have we been justified for God’s glory, but we are being sanctified to the same end, and from God’s perspective, His promises that we will be glorified are as good as done! O’ how we long for that glorious day! And so, Biblical Christianity is a saving religion, and salvation has always been the central theme of Christian songs and hymns.

In the negative sense, salvation relates to our deliverance from the penalty of sin, that is, from divine wrath, spiritual death, and hell. And in musing upon those divine truths, we are reminded again of that beloved text in the gospel of John which reads,

^NAU John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. ¹⁷ “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved [sw,|zw] through Him.”

In the positive sense, salvation grants us the privilege “to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), to be made “alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5), to be delivered “from the domain of darkness, and transferred . . . to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:13), and to have “the hope of eternal life” (Titus 1:2). After Pentecost, “the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). In other words in what may have been part of an early church creed, Paul wrote, “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 2:15). The purpose of the incarnation was to accomplish the sacrifice that would save lost sinners, among whom we all were once numbered (Eph. 2:5). And so this brings us to point number 2, the fact that we cannot save ourselves.

II. We Do Not Save Ourselves (“not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness”)

The Savior did not redeem us because anything that we were, or could ever be, in ourselves. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes this very clear “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; ⁹ not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

The phrase “not on the basis of” translates the one Greek word evk. One person offered these comments from the original language of Titus 3:5, “‘Not as a result (or outcome, evk to indicate source) of works, of those in connection with (some kind of) righteousness which (works) we on our part did (the English idiom is: have done) did God save us.’ Let no one harbor such an idea or imagine that he has either done such works or that such works are possible.”[7] “In His act of saving us God could not take and did not in any way take into consideration any works that had been done by us.”[8] The source of our salvation does not come from (evk) our own personal good works or righteous acts and more specifically, we are not saved by means of any supposed self-righteousness that we think we may have!

Now, in verse 5, the apostle is using the word “righteousness” (dikaiosu,nh|) in a broad sense so as to compare it to God’s righteousness. Paul’s goal here is to emphasize to Titus and the church that our man-made standards of righteousness in no way measure up to please the Lord. How we evaluate and determine what righteousness is, is not even close to the standard that God has. There is a vast canyon between God’s righteousness and man’s filthy, vile, and putrid forms of self-righteousness, a canyon that can only be bridged by God Himself coming down to lovingly seek out man and give Him His righteousness through faith alone in Christ alone. That is why the word order in the original language is “Not by works of righteousness, which we have done . . . . He saved us.” When the Holy Spirit wants to emphasize something in the original language, usually the emphasized part will be at the beginning of the sentence or the clause in the sentence. “The [word] order eliminates any thought of salvation due to personal merit and magnifies God’s sovereign grace.”[9] The “we” (h`mei/j) of verse 5 further strengthens the fact that we were helpless and totally unable to please God apart from Him seeking and drawing us to faith in Jesus (Rom. 5:6). “The implication is: there were no such works. Neither Paul nor anyone else had ever performed such a work, for before God and His holy law all – both Jews and pagans – are by nature ‘under sin’ (Rom. 3:9).”[10]

No norm exists according to which a righteous judge, in particular God, could declare us righteous; if any judge ever did such a thing he would thereby condemn himself as being unrighteous; his verdict would be false. In other words Paul says more than that we did not meet the righteous requirements of any moral code of true moral law. We deserved utter condemnation as being unrighteous in all our works. . . . His act of saving us was in toto an act of mercy.[11]

And so brethren, we see that Paul shows us that the basis for our salvation is stated both negatively and positively, by His mercy.[12] Negatively, He saved us “not by works (e;rgwn) of righteousness (dikaiosu,nh|) which we have done.” God could never save us on the basis of what we think are good works since all our works, apart from conversion, are completely unrighteous. As Isaiah writes, “all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away” (Isa. 64:6).

CONCLUSION

No “deeds”, even those “done in” relative “righteousness” could have earned or merited our salvation. When I speak of relative righteousness, I’m talking about how lost people typically compare themselves to people who are morally worse off than they are then assume that because they don’t do the wicked things that their immoral neighbor does, they think they are going to heaven because of their relative goodness as compared to their neighbor. This person is the typical “goody two-shoes, hip-to-be-square person” who always helps little ole’ grannies cross the street and appears to be nice, pleasant, doesn’t drink too much beer, and is generally kind to everybody. But when we consider what a righteous person is according to biblical standards, we realize that we cannot determine who is righteous and who is not by comparing ourselves to each other because to do so is no way to determine who is worthy to get into heaven and who is not. The proper thing to do is to compare ourselves with God’s holiness and righteousness, and when we do that, we realize that we all like sheep have gone astray, each of us to our own way, and there is none righteous, not even one (Isaiah 53:6; Rom. 3:10). We realize that we have not made and cannot make any contribution to God’s sovereign and gracious work of salvation. Those who are Christians realize that they did not deserve deliverance from sin and death. Christians that understand God’s love, mercy, and righteousness realize that they did not deserve to be born again, but they realize that they were graciously recreated in the very image of the Lord Jesus (Rom. 8:29). We did not deserve to become God’s children and co-heirs with His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:17). We did not deserve the promise of everlasting life, which we will spend in heaven in the continual presence of God (Dan. 12:3; Matt. 25:46). O’ what a wonderful, gracious, and powerfully saving God we have!

---

[1] http://www.sfofgso.org/about.asp?href=solas

[2] The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Glasgow, Scotland: Free Presbyterian Publications, 2001 reprint), 56ff. See also online at http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

[3] Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom Vol. II, 6^th ed., (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007 reprint), 112-113.

[4] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol. IV, The Epistles of Paul, (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 1931), 607.

[5] George W. Knight III, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, The Pastoral Epistles. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 341. [Italics mine for emphasis – DSS]

[6] Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 11, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 445.

[7] R. C. H. Lenski, St. Paul’s Epistles, Titus (Minneapolis, Minn: Augsburg, 1961), 931.

[8] Ibid., 932.

[9] Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, ibid.

[10] William Hendriksen, Thessalonians, Timothy, and Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 390.

[11] Lenski, ibid.

[12] This positive aspect will be the focus of a future message.