Introduction

Romans 8:29-30 is a distinct passage in all of Scripture on the awe inspiring subjects of divine foreknowledge, predestination, foreordination, calling and in a word sovereignty (we might call this section a packed sovereignty unit). However, these subjects trouble the minds and disturb the souls of many readers of Scripture. Perhaps it is because the debates on these things have often gotten ugly. They also humble and challenge us. Thus, they give some people the shivers and the jitters. This is a regrettable state of affairs for any biblical teaching but it is especially regrettable for these subjects in the context of Romans 8. Why do I say this is especially regrettable here in Romans 8? I say that because the theme of this unique passage on God's sovereignty is love. To be sure, our grasp of divine love is shaped by these doctrines but these doctrines are also shaped by our grasp of divine love.

Note the broad context.  These verses (29-30) give confirmation of God's providential care in the context of suffering. In 8:17 suffering was introduced and is stated as a necessary part of our union with Christ. We will share in His glory and get to glory the same way He did, through suffering (v.17). Paul then expands on the subject of suffering and gives three comforts. The third comfort for us in suffering is God's providence (8:28). We should not lose sight of the fact that the sovereignty unit (29-30) proves and confirms the remarkable and profound fact that God is working all things, including suffering, for our good in the fullest sense possible.

For two weeks, I want us to reflect on how all the elements of sovereignty fall under the heading of God's love. Today I want to stress that it is not the case that love is over here and sovereign election is over there so we have to try to connect them. Instead, election is loving and love is electing. It should become evident that the theme of Romans 8:29-30 is electing love. Three things can be said about electing love: it is the fount of every blessing, it is the fount of the blessing of predestination and it is the fount of the blessings of calling, justification, and glorification. This morning I will concentrate on the first point, namely, God's electing love is the fount of every blessing.

1A. God's electing love is the fount of every blessing

I get this first point from the opening verb foreknew (v. 29). Understanding this word in this context is critical. Different definitions of foreknowledge here will place us in extremely different worlds of thought that affect numerous other things both doctrinal and practical. We must spend some time on this word. Since many things overlap in the long history of this debate we need to do our best to unfold the material in a straightforward manner. We can do so by following some steps that survey all of Scripture and narrow down to Romans 8. So we will consider: 1) the generic or common usage, 2) the rich biblical usage, 3) a prevalent unbiblical usage, and 4) the contextual usage in Romans 8.

1) Let's begin with the Generic Usage.

The generic usage is simply the most common idea of grasping and understanding information. We are to grow in knowledge. That is easy to comprehend. But what happens with the addition of the prefix (fore, before, pre)? This can have a generic use as well. Foreknow can have an informational meaning (in two of the five places it occurs in the NT).

In a crisis experienced by Paul, he said literally, "they foreknew me for a long time" (Acts 26:5). The point is that he was known before the crisis erupted (i.e. "they knew me beforehand, for a long time now"). This verse has nothing to do with pre-vision; it uses foreknew in a way we might not expect. It refers to a time in the past, a time before, at which time Paul was known to be a devote and active Pharisee. He was known beforehand as a Pharisee. Looking back he can refer to a time when this is how he was known; it does not look into the future with pre-knowledge. It all depends on the reference point of the "pre" or the "fore" whether pre the present or pre the future.

There is also the general or generic use of foreknow as pre-knowledge of future events. For example, Peter speaks of foreknowing either the coming of the new heavens and the new earth (2 Pet. 3:13 with 17) or of foreknowing the work of people who distort Scripture (3:16 with 17). Perhaps he is saying we foreknow both. Having this knowledge we are to be on guard against lawless men which ties verse 17 closely to verse 16. We know ahead of time that people will come across our path who distort Scripture. We can probably say that we all have foreknowledge in this generic sense. For example, we probably agree that given human nature we need speeding laws in school zones and we need courts to settle disputes. In the church, even our young gathering, we can say that given human nature (and biblical teaching) we need to carefully put principles in place that guard good communication and order (i.e. We need a definition of how formal membership is obtained and answers to questions like these: What is our confession of faith? How does our confession relate to Scripture?)

The other occurrences in the NT of know with the prefix are Romans 8:29; 11:5; and 1 Peter 1:20. Before we look at them we need to consider the rich usage of both knowing and foreknowing. By rich I refer to something additional to the idea of grasping information in the present or with regard to the future.

2) The Rich Biblical Usage

The rich usage of know/foreknow refers to the idea of loving or knowing intimately. This does not exclude the thought of having information but it has the much richer meaning of intimate distinguishing and electing love. A number of passages have this usage. We get this meaning from use of know for marital love (Gen. 4:1, "Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived, " KJV; knew is translated "had relations with" in the NASV). We get it from the backdrop of the wide use it has of God knowing His people in a special way (Ex. 2:25, "God looked on the Israelites and knew them"; cf. NIV: "was concerned about them"). Electing love is expressed in God's knowledge of Abraham (Gen 18:19, God knew him with a purpose: "so that he would obey." The knowing brought this to pass. Knowing is not simply grasping something about Abraham; it is doing something to him. Thus it means to lovingly set him apart; it is electing love or loving election. Hence the NIV has "I have chosen him." But chosen is inadequate by itself. We need the additional thought that the choosing is an intimate knowing as its expression or manifestation. Again, it is electing love or loving election with both terms needed to get the full picture.).

The combination of love and election is evident in Amos 3:2 where we are told that God only knew Israel though He just listed His knowledge of the sins of the surrounding nations. Israel's sins are listed as well. Thus the only nation upon whom God set His intimate-knowing-love is Israel. This nation is thus chosen. Note the convergence of setting love upon and choosing. They are one and the same act. For God to set His love upon a nation in distinction from the other nations (you only) is to choose that nation in that act of love. Israel was a sinful people living among other sinful nations. But God loved her and not them. God's love was a discriminating act, a setting apart, an election. It is obviously gracious because of the prevalence of sin.

These facts are not only true in the days of Amos but they are true in the very beginning of the nation's history as a chosen nation. In Deuteronomy we should notice how love and election are intertwined without the word know. Though they are a stiff-necked people (9:6), still God chose them out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be His people and treasured possession (7:6). Chosen here is tied with "treasured." In the next verse (7:7), two actions of God are stated: He "set His affection on" and "He chose." Why He set His affection on and chose Israel is not her number (7:7) or righteousness (9:6) but because of God's love (7:8). The loving election of Israel finds its cause in God Himself, in His love, and in nothing in man.

In Amos, the use of the word know is a rich way of combining these two inseparable acts, loving and choosing, in one word. To be known by God is to be loved and chosen, to be the object of His electing love or His loving election. God's intimate love is active; it is set upon particular undeserving people (Abraham, and Israel). God's love is elective, discriminating and distinguishing. It is set upon some sinners and not upon other sinners.

Knowing therefore has the rich meaning of electing love. What about foreknowing? Jeremiah combines the notion of "before" with knowing in this rich sense. Being known before he was born (foreknown) is parallel with his being set apart and appointed as a prophet (Jer. 1:5) so "known before" or foreknown has the meaning of loving choice attached to it as we should already expect from the word know (and from passages like Deut. 7). There is surely no reason to limit the idea to information that God had about him beforehand. Something much deeper is going on since the knowing is stated to be before Jeremiah's birth. He is told of the time of God's knowing (before his birth) to eliminate everything in his life as conditioning God's actions in any way.

Those who oppose the interpretation I am giving of foreknow must cut the rich sense of know out of foreknow. But passages like Jeremiah 1:5 show that foreknow and know have the same rich meaning.

Now let's consider the rich usage of foreknow in the NT.

This rich usage applies to foreknow in the NT in the two remaining passages we have not yet discussed (1 Pet. 1:20; Rom. 11:2; the final ref. is Rom. 8:29).

In 1 Peter 1:20 it is said of Jesus that He was foreknown before the creation of the world. Notice the double use of "before": He was "[be]-fore known before the creation." It is like the example with Paul. If we look back to a point in the past, at that point Paul was known and if we look back to a point in the past (before the past!) at that point Christ was known. But distinct from the case of Paul who was disliked (unloved), this reference to Christ is to be understood in a way similar to John 17:24, "Father…you loved me before the creation of the world." "He was known" is saying "He was loved." Chosen indicates that He was the object of God's loving choices.

In Romans 11:2, evidence that God did not reject His people whom He foreknew is found in the Elijah narrative in the remnant chosen by grace (11:2-5). His people whom He foreknew are defined as the elect (v. 7). At minimum, this passage indicates that to be foreknown is to be elect. And when we see this in the backdrop of Deuteronomy 7 and Amos 3, etc., we have to take foreknew in the rich sense of lovingly chosen (the opposite of rejected!). God's covenantal love for the children of Abraham is not set aside; in the OT it was via the remnant, so now it is fulfilled in the elect remnant (the nation was chosen while other nations were passed over and now, in the NT, within the nations some are chosen to salvation and others are passed over; cf. nation to church with a true remnant within each).

What God understands informationally is not in view in Romans 11. I am not denying His omniscience (He knows all people, events and things and He knows them all beforehand). All I am saying is that nothing is said here regarding some specific information that God knows and that conditions what He ordains (that conditions His sovereign acts). Why He does what He does in electing love is found in Himself and in nothing in man.

But some readers of the Bible want to find something in man that conditions God's sovereign acts. A key verse for this view is Romans 8:29 (i.e. foreknew).

3) This brings us to consider an unbiblical use of the term foreknow.

This issue is so important that it calls for some careful critique, doing the job of pastoral refutation. The unbiblical view I refer to interprets foreknow as a reference to foreseen faith. This is a prevalent view that, if adopted, yields a distinctive world view. It is extremely important to figure out what to rule out and what to rule in regarding the term foreknew.

It might be argued that we have to be very precise in regard to the information known by God ahead of time: it might be argued that it is not a reference to all people known in God's omniscience but a reference to God's knowledge of man's response in faith. The foreknown are those foreseen to have faith; it refers to those that God knows will believe. These are the ones predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Being predestined, called, justified and glorified all hinge on whether or not man will believe. [The reason that we should not take foreknew as a reference to God's general factual knowledge or omniscience is very simple: it is because all who are known or foreknown are destined for heaven's glory as indicated by the linkage from known through to glorified. So if known were used here in the sense of all the people about whom God has information then it would be telling us that everyone is going to heaven. Since we know that some in fact perish in their sins, then having information about people cannot be the meaning of foreknew here in Romans 8:29. But the better presentations of the Arminian view seek to be more precise in regard to the information known. They narrow down foreknowledge of faith.]

But there are serious problems with this view. 1) The text does not give us any such information. It says nothing of foreseen faith. 2) As a matter of fact, no text of Scripture gives this kind of connection between God's foreknowledge and man's faith as a "foresight of a difference" (Murray) that God's sees will exist between people and that conditions His actions. 3) Instead, Scripture in general points to foreknowledge as making the difference that exists between people (cf. Jer. 1:5, knowing before Jeremiah's birth is intertwined with setting apart and ordaining; and in Rom. 11:5, God reserved the remnant making them different from those God hardened; this remnant is referred to as the elect and the people God foreknew; God's foreknowledge of them is realized in His separating them from Baal worshippers: He foreknew them and acted on their behalf making the difference). 4) If we supply foreseen faith to this text we add oil to water and it does not mix. Another way of saying this is that to add a human response that conditions God's sovereign actions cited in the text adds a fallible link to an infallible chain. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Or we can say it one other way: the addition of foreseen faith to the text goes against the flow of the text. It is like trying to row a boat up some steep white water rapids. 5) It is unwarranted and arbitrary to say that since the text mentions justification and justification is by faith then what is precisely in view is foreknowledge of the faith that justifies. But why select this information as that which is precisely known by God in advance? Calling is known in advance, then why not argue that foreknown in v. 29 refers to God's foresight of His call of them in time. In order to believe one must be called and all the called do believe (cf. God's call within His providence, 3-12-00), so why not make calling the precise thing foreknown about these people? The answer is that is it merely being arbitrary to select any information about these people and make it the object foreknown (whether God's efficacious call, their faith, or even their faithfulness which is necessary to their sanctification and glorification). Therefore, foreseen faith view is untenable.

4) We come last to the contextual usage of foreknew in Romans 8:29

What are some reasons for taking foreknew in this verse to mean foreloved? We must keep the fact in mind that general informational knowledge and prevision of faith are ruled out which already predisposes us to the richer meaning of foreknow. We need only add some reasons that rule forelove in.

a) Love is definitely the flow of thought here. Romans 8:29 is presented as a basis that supports God's providential care in working all things for our good. Thus, if one is under God's providential care, v. 28, then that person is foreknown which suggests that foreknow has the flavor of love (with providence as the outworking of love).

Let's think of this in another way. The introduction of foreknown just "drops in" as a repeat of being objects of God's love in v. 28-but love is not stated in v. 28. In v. 29, a notion that overlaps with providence is expressed as a practical synonym for being objects of God's providential purposes. So we should conclude that foreloved in the rich OT sense of being known is what we have in Romans 8:29. Foreloved loops back over v. 28 showing that it is not mere knowledge.

b) The idea of selection or distinguishing love is found in the reference to "whom" in distinction from all others (v. 29). There are particular people that are foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. So it is natural to take foreknown in the rich sense found elsewhere in Romans of God's election of a remnant (11:5; we need this and the OT backdrop).

c) A key point to note is that it is not information about people that is foreknown; instead, people are foreknown. It is very different to say that Adam knew something about Eve and Adam knew Eve. It is quite bland to read of God's relation to Israel, the remnant, Abraham, Jeremiah, the righteous (He knows the way of the righteous) as telling us that God has information about them such as He knows their faith. Instead, the point is that God knows, cares, protects, guides the way of the righteous, i.e. He loves the righteous. Likewise, when we come to Romans 8, it is quite bland to restrict our thoughts to a prevision of facts about people. This is especially true when the text draws attention to the persons whom God foreknow and says nothing regarding information about them. Facts are known (in the informational sense) but people are loved (in the rich biblical usage of know and foreknow in both OT and NT).

Concluding Applications

1) We must conclude that foreknown here in Romans 8:29 refers to God's electing love; it refers to forelove. Love is the fundamental theme in the presentation of election in this text in this way (via foreknew).

2) We must further stress the point that God's love must be defined by including the necessary ingredient of election. Thus, it is an unbiblical view of God's love to remove sovereign, efficacious and unconditional election from it. God's love for undeserving sinners is such that He chooses a people out from the nations (from the nation Israel and Israel within Israel, Deut. 7:6-8 and Rom. 9:6-13; forming the church, those called out, 2 Pet. 2:9).

Can we find a human analogy that shows that love is elective, that love is not love if the selection and exclusion of election is not present? Yes, it is found in a husband's love for his wife: if it is not selective and exclusive then it is not love breaking the covenant of companionship that is supposed to be for life. Accordingly, God is like a husband to Israel and He thus chose her and treasured her in distinction from the other nations. This informs us of the meaning of God's elective love of the remnant within Israel and of the remnant today from the nations (Rom. 11:1-5).

Thus, foreknew is a rich term that combines love and election. We must not lose this in the debates over sovereign election. When the charge is raised that election is arbitrary, a good answer is "no, my friend, election is an act of love, God's love manifests itself in election."  When it is claimed that sovereign unconditional election cannot be true because it is based on foreknowledge, we need to say, "foreknowledge is electing love, the appeal to foreknowledge strengthens the case for sovereign unconditional election. It is why we must believe in sovereign unconditional election."

3) We must also stress that election must be defined by including the necessary ingredient of love (cf. for Jesus to be chosen means that He is precious to the Father, 1 Pet. 2:4). Election can sound harsh if it is truncated to a blunt selection. Opponents of sovereign election caricature the doctrine in this way and thereby put it in its worst light. We must maintain the warmth of election by noting how inseparable it is from God's love. God chooses in love, His choice is loving, His love is elective. Being chosen we are choice, treasured, precious and like Christ the object of His choices for our good.

Consider the flavor of being known: "now that you know God- or rather are known by God" (Gal. 4:9); you are set apart by God's electing love having been set affectionately upon you! And this puts your knowing Him into proper perspective. Also, Col. 3:12 combines chosen, dearly loved, and set apart. The term "foreknow" simply summarizes all of this in one word.

But then do we hold that God loves all men? We have to distinguish between God's common and His special or saving love. He loves all in the sense that He sends the rain and sunshine upon all, in the sense that He invites all to the gospel feast, and in the sense that He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked in and of itself. But He does not love all with a saving/electing love. This love saves all upon whom it is bestowed.

4) Foreknew is the hinge that tells us that love is the theme carried forward from v. 28 and into vs. 29-30. From "foreknew" we learn that what is discussed in v. 28 is the outworking of electing love. Swinging the door back to v. 28, electing love is seen in its broadest scope (electing love comes to realization in God working all things together for the good of His elect). Swinging the door forward to 29b-30, electing love is seen in narrower scope. The narrowing down will lead to a twofold confirmation of providence that we will consider next week.

Thus as a transitional term in the move from v. 28 to vs. 29-30, the use of the term foreknew tells us that providence (v. 28) as manifestation of God's electing love is therefore a manifestation of how precious, treasured, distinguished, set apart and loved you and I are as the people of God for whom Jesus died, for whom He was raised from the dead, for whom He was seated at the right hand of God, and for whom He now intercedes insuring our safe arrival home to heaven. In other words, electing love/loving election is the fount of every blessing promised to us in Romans 8:28. The good that comes to us flows from the fountain of affection and delight that has been set upon us from before the foundation of the world.

In giving a comfort for us in suffering we thought Paul reached a high point in Romans 8:28 but to our pleasant surprise he reaches even higher to the fount from which Romans 8:28 flows: the distinguishing, electing, saving love of God. To Him be the glory forever, Amen!