THE MEANING` OF “FOREKNEW” IN ROMANS 8:29

The term translated “foreknew” (proginōskō) is used 5 times in the New Testament: Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pt. 1:2, 20.[1] Three of these passages have to do with the salvation of man (Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pt. 1:2) and two of them with God’s foreknowledge of Christ himself as a Savior who would die (Acts 2:23; 1 Pt. 1:20).[2] In all five instances the verb does not speak merely of a simple foreknowledge or even middle knowledge of what persons would or might do (or of whether or not they would believe). Rather it denotes that God determined beforehand to bring about certain situations or a certain intimate relationship with one(s) that involves his blessings (a person to be saved or of the Son’s mission). In the texts concerning Jesus Christ, the Father determined beforehand that the Son would be blessed as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of sinners. In 1 Peter 1:2 Peter writes that saints are elected according to God’s foreknowledge. He chooses them based upon whatever foreknowledge is. Yet, to determine what more specifically it means and to see that it means something other than awareness of what would or might happen, we need to turn to the background for the word. 

The background to this verb is found in the Old Testament.[3] God’s knowledge is vast. His thoughts number more than the grains of the sand (Ps. 139:18), his understanding is infinite (Ps. 147:5). Yet, “there is [also] an intimacy about God’s knowledge: it reaches even to people’s thoughts (Ps. 139:2) and to the motives of the heart (Prov. 16:2; Is. 66:18).”[4] Isaiah deals with God’s foreknowledge more than any other book of the Old Testament. For him, knowing future events shows that Yahweh is the true God, above mere idols (41:20-29; 42:9; 44:7, 25; 45:21). God also foretold Cyrus’ restoration of Israel from captivity (44:24-45:13; cf. Ezra 1:1-4). Yet, some would ask in our time: “But how can this be? How can God know the future free actions of a human?”[5] It appears that the Old Testament would argue that whatever answer is given must take into account God’s absolute sovereignty and unconditional foreordiation: ‘The king’s heart is in the hand of Yahweh; he directs it like a canal wherever he pleases’ (Prov. 21:1).”[6]

Even more to the point, Jeremiah 1:5 provides background for “foreknow.” There we read, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you as a prophet to the nations.” Here, in context, the verb “knew” (Hebrew: yada`; LXX: epistamai) connotes more than mere awareness.[7] It appears to be synonymous to other places in the Old Testament where the verb yada` (“know”) connotes “choose” or “determine to focus upon with special blessings” (Gen. 18:19; Amos 3:2 [here the LXX has ginōskō, a cognate of proginōskō]), which have behind them passages where the “know” verbs clearly mean more than “have awareness” or “be acquainted with,” but rather “enter into intimate relationship” (cf. also Gen. 4:1). 

Because of this background, we should not be surprised to discover that in Psalm 1:6 for God to “know” a group of individuals can also be virtually synonymous with being focused on them to give saving blessings and true life: “For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.” Here “knows” (Hebrew: yada`; LXX: ginōskō) is opposite of “perish” (Hebrew: 'abad; LXX: apollymi). The verb “perish” in this context and many others (Pss. 68:2; 73:27; Is. 60:12; Lk. 13:3, 5; John 3:16) connotes the undergoing of God’s eternal judgment, i.e. the opposite of true and full life.[8] The background of this word used in this manner is God’s judgment of Israel by removing them from their promised land due to their covenant breaking (Dt. 30:18; Josh. 23:16), a type of the ultimate judgment for sin. 

We discover similar uses of “know” in the New Testament, some of which most likely are influenced by the Old Testament. In John 10:27-28 the apostle records words of Jesus and uses the verb ginōskō (“know”) to speak of entering into an intimate relationship (a saving relationship) with others: ^“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish,[9] and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” It is obvious the Lord is not speaking of mere awareness of his sheep. Based upon context, as well as the Old Testament background we have covered, his knowing of them is a turning of his attention in their way to save and enter saving relationship—to give saving blessings. 

A similar use (but in this case used of men toward men and men toward the Lord Jesus) is found in 1 John 3:1, where the apostle attributes the lack of acknowledgment, care, and respect (similar to relationship) for Christians by the un-saved world to the fact that they don’t have those affections for (or relationship with) Jesus Christ: “The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him” (ginōskō in both instances).[10]

Finally, in 1 Corinthians 2:2 the Apostle Paul affirmed to the Corinthians that when he was among them, he had determined not to focus intently on anything else as central, except the crucified Jesus: “For I decided to know (eidō) nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” The meaning is not that Paul forgot all knowledge except this. He is focusing upon a sense of “know,” which his readers would have understood, and that focused upon more than mere awareness of information. It is a turning of heart and affection toward this central message and viewing it as more important than all others. 

What we discover in the Bible, then, is that “know” verbs—used both with God and with man—often focus upon more than mere awareness, they connote a turning of the heart and affections toward a message or toward others. In the case of God, for him to “know” someone(s) is to turn his heart toward them in order to bestow saving blessings or at least to bless or use them in some special way. For him to foreknow them, most likely, then, appears to mean that God has determined ahead of time to turn his heart and affections toward them to bestow blessings in regard to a special calling and/or in regard to salvation.[11]  

Now, returning to Romans 8:29, given the reality that in Romans 9:11 we discover election is not based upon future works done by the individual (including the faith that brings forth the good works), it follows that an understanding of “foreknew” here in this passage, that it is merely an awareness ahead of time, is untenable.[12]

What is more, John Piper also highlights how the thought flow of Romans 8:29-30 affirms this understanding of “foreknew.” 

The plain point of this passage is that God is working infallibly to save his people, from foreknowing in eternity past to glorifying in eternity future. None is lost at any stage of redemption along the way. 

…Notice that Romans 8:30 says, “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”Focus for a moment on the fact that all whom God calls he also justifies. This calling in verse 30 is not given to all people. The reason we know it is not is that all those who are called are justified—but all people are not justified. So this calling in verse 30 is not the general call to repentance that preachers give or that God gives through the glory of nature (Ps. 19:1-2). Everybody receives that call. The call here is given only to those whom God predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, as verse 30 says…. And this call leads necessarily to justification…. All the called are justified, not just some of them.

But we know that justification is by faith (Romans 5:1). So if all the called are infallibly justified, then the call itself must effect or guarantee the faith, since none can be justified without faith. Between God’s act of predestination and justification there is a divine act of calling. Since justification is only by faith, the calling in view must be the act of God whereby he calls faith into being. And since it necessarily results in justification, it must be effect[ive] or irresistible. None is called (in this sense) who is not justified. All the called are justified. So the calling of verse 30 is the sovereign work of God which brings people to faith by which they are justified.[13]

 

Piper continues:

Now notice the implication this has for the meaning of “foreknowledge”in verse 29. When Paul says in verse 29, “those whom he foreknew he also predestined,” he can’t mean (as so many try to make him mean) that God knows in advance who will use their power of self-determination to come to faith, so that he can predestine them to sonship on that basis. It can’t mean that, because we have seen from verse 30 that people do not come to faith on their own. They are called effect[ively]. That is why Paul can say that everyone who is called is infallibly justified—justification is by faith, and so the divine call guarantees the faith. It is not the product of self-determination that God responds to. It is the product of God’s grace which God initiates. (emphasis added)

So the foreknowledge of Romans 8:29 is not the mere awareness of something that will happen in the future apart from God’s active grace. Rather it is the kind of foreknowledge referred to in Old Testament texts like Genesis 18:19 (“I have chosen [literally: known] Abraham so that he may charge his children…to keep the way of the Lord”), and Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations”), and Amos 3:2 (“You only [Israel] have I known from all the families of the earth”). As C. E. B. Cranfield says, the foreknowledge of Romans 8:29 is “that special taking knowledge of a person which is God’s electing grace.” Such foreknowledge is virtually the same as election: “Those whom he foreknew (that is, chose) he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.”[14]

 

 

When we understand “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 in accordance with its near and far contexts, in accordance with the thought flow of these two verses, in accordance with the Old Testament background, and in accordance with other New Testament uses of the “know” (including “foreknow”) word group, we conclude that a good amplified translation for this clause seems to be: “…those whom he long ago thought of in a saving relationship to himself…”[15] or “those whom in eternity past he determined to turn his heart toward and love in a saving manner with his saving blessings.” It does not speak of simple foreknowledge or middle knowledge (see Introduction and Chapter One for explanations and definitions). 

“Once we understand the biblical concept of foreknowledge, we see that God’s doing things in accord with his foreknowledge means that he does them according to what he desires, wants, purposes, wills”[16]—and this includes entering into an intimate relationship with them that brings the blessings of salvation and/or a special mission.[17]

---

[1] S. M. Baugh, “The Meaning Of Foreknowledge,” in Thomas R. Schreiner, Bruce A. Ware, ed’s., The Grace Of God The Bondage Of The Will, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 188.

 

[2] It must be noted that in none of the five passages is faith the object of the foreknowledge (as one would expect, if the passages were referring to middle knowledge). When an object is clearly stated, it is always a person(s).

 

[3] In this discussion I am dependent upon Baugh, “Foreknowledge,” 185-92, for its direction. Yet, I have also added much of the specific content.

The verb proginōskō  (or its cognates) is not found in the canonical Old Testament. It appears eight times in the Apocryphal books—only one of which is clearly action on the part of God (Judith 9:6), and which appears to be synonymously parallel to “will/determined” and “prepared”. The rest speak either of a human’s or wisdom-personified’s prior knowledge (Judith 11:19; Wisdom 6:13; 8:8; 18:6; 19:13; 2 Macc. 14:3; 15:8), most of which could be understood similar to how the indeterminist would understand foreknowledge on the part of God, namely awareness ahead of time. Given the lack of Old Testament background for this verb, especially in relation to God, it appears that the best reservoir for understanding how it may be used is to examine how the non-prefixed ginōskō is used, especially since it is used of God in ways that appear to have bearing upon the topic-at-hand.

 

[4] Ibid., 185.

 

[5] This question is asked in regard to libertarian (indeterministic) freedom that would require either simple foreknowledge or foreknowledge according to the middle knowledge scheme—a prior knowledge of choices that always involve alternativity.

 

[6] Baugh, “Foreknowledge,” 185-92.

Isaiah 46:10-11 (a passage dealt with in Chapter Five) comes as close as any in the Bible to setting forth a solution to the puzzle of how foreknowledge relates to God’s sovereign decrees. In that passage three parallel participles proclaim what God has done and will do in regard to Cyrus and Judah’s future deliverance: “declaring…saying… calling.” Though neither proginōskō or ginōskō is used in the LXX (or their equivalents in Hebrew), yet, the text does say with the first participial clause that God is “declaring the end from the beginning.” This could very well be similar to the idea God knows what will happen and so he declares it. Yet, in the other two participial clauses we discover both that God’s future plan is certain (“calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel…”), but also that these future events certainly happen because they flow from his counsel and eternal purpose: “saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” In other words, God does not decide what will happen based upon his knowledge of what humans would do in given circumstances (as if he were dependent upon or limited by such choices). Rather, God’s declaration of what would happen flows out of his counsel and eternal purpose. God, in other words, is the ultimate one who decides and not angels or man. This demands free human choices in the deterministic (compatibilistic) understanding. 

 

[7] Note how it is parallel with “sanctified” and “ordained.” In other words, it suggests a meaning that God, in eternity past, determined to set Jeremiah aside for the blessing of a particular and special calling, a set of tasks as a prophet. 

 

[8] Read in the context of this psalm, for God to know the way of the righteous involves the blessings of life and fructification (v. 3), whereas perishing involves lack of blessing, life, and fructification—all part of God’s judgment (vv. 4-5). 

 

[9] Note how “know” and “perish” are opposing terms here, just as in Psalm 1.

 

[10] Part of the background to this verse appears to be Isaiah 61:9, where the prophet speaks of the future inaugurated kingdom and New Covenant time in which the nations will come to God and be part of his people in this manner: “Their offspring shall be known (Hebrew: yada`; LXX: ginōskō) among the nations, and their descendants in the midst of the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge (Hebrew: nakar; LXX: epiginōskō) them, that they are an offspring the Lord has blessed.” What is significant about this text is the parallelism between the Hebrew verbs yada` and nakar. The Hiphil form of the latter verb suggests the idea of “acknowledging with honor” (Gesenius’ Lexicon on-line). There is a thread of use of “know” words throughout both testaments which speaks of affection for, the presence of honor and a sense of importance, and the idea of intimacy or relationship—turning toward with praise, honor, or blessing. 

See John 8:55 for another time John uses ginōskō to speak of man’s intimate knowledge of, their relationship with, God (or actually the lack thereof). 

 

[11] Feinberg, No One, 519-22, agrees. He writes (522) that so many of the terms in the Old and New Testaments that speaks of knowledge or knowing refer to “knowing by personal relationship and experience. To know someone in this sense…is to make that person on object of concern and acknowledgment and to regard that person favorably. It means having a relationship with that person.” Feinberg continues: “When we add to this the notion of foreknowing, or knowing beforehand, all that is added is that at some time prior to the present, there was a decision to establish such a relationship. Hence, foreknowledge in this sense can be defined as committing oneself beforehand to someone in an act constituting a relationship and making that person an object of care and concern for the one uniting with him.”

 

[12] Craig, The Only Wise, 34, wrongly asserts the following about the use of “foreknow” in Romans 8:28; 1 Peter 1:1-2: “On the basis of his personally knowing certain individuals, before they come to be, God elects them and foreordains them to glorification. I think we have to allow that this is a plausible interpretation of ‘foreknow’ in these passages.” Elsewhere, Craig, “Calvinism Vs. Molinism,” 73, more specifically argues this verse refers to God’s middle knowledge.

 

[13] Piper, The Pleasures, 140.

 

[14] Piper, The Pleasures, 140-41.

 

[15] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 2000), 676.

 

[16] Feinberg, No One, 526. Martin Luther, The Bondage Of The Will, J. I. Packer, O. R. Johnston, Translators (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 80, similarly once wrote: “God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to his own immutable, eternal, and infallible will.”

Now that I have explored the biblical usage of the “know” and “foreknow” words, it should also be noted that I am not arguing that “foreknew” and “predestined” are being used as synonyms, nor that “foreknew” merely means “choose” or “elect” as Craig, The Only Wise God, 32, 34, suggests of Calvinists.

 

[17] Given the strong biblical evidence for how the “know” and “foreknow” words are used elsewhere, it would seem most likely that Peter (who introduces “foreknowledge” with no other indicators of what he means by it) would use the word “foreknowledge” in 1 Pt. 1:2 in a way consistent with this biblical background. Additionally, his strong view of God’s absolute sovereignty, exercised through meticulous providence, present elsewhere in the epistle (e.g. 3:17; 4:19), as well as his strong emphasis on God’s determinative relationship to regeneration in the immediate context (cf. 1:3), would also suggest this understanding. 

Clearing Up Misunderstandings

Recently I’ve had a couple posts that show the importance of Christians engaging the public square. If you know me, you are not surprised by these posts since I have consistently taught the importance of engaging the public square through my whole pastoral career.

 

What I want to do in this post is to clear up some misunderstandings that many Christians have regarding the public arena. In addition to clearing up the misunderstanding that Christians must stay in the middle and not be partisan (which I addressed in the last two posts), here are some other misunderstandings I will address. 

 

We Must Either Serve The Gospel Or The Public Arena

Too many Christians think that one cancels out the other. Yet, the New Testament is clear that good works should flow from our embrace of the gospel since we are changed people (Eph. 2:8-10). In fact we should be zealous to carry out good works (Titus 2:14) and so should devote ourselves to them (Titus 3:14) so that God is glorified (Mt. 5:16). 

 

Think about it this way: Do you believe that meeting the physical needs of people (feeding, clothing, housing, giving aid to those sick or hurt, etc.) opposes or snuffs out an emphasis upon the gospel?  Most would say, as I have just argued, that these things flow out of a true embrace of the gospel and demonstrate that one’s faith profession is genuine. If all of this is the case, then to engage the public arena in a manner that would prevent hunger, homelessness, poverty, being hurt by lawlessness, etc., should also be an outworking of the gospel. This is especially the case in light of the fact that Scripture teaches the importance of work for our well-being and as part of our dignity (cf. Gen. 2:15; Prov. 6:6-11; 16:26; Eph. 4:28; 2 Thes. 3:10) and provision through work is the ultimate answer to all these issues (see Prov. 31:10-31). So, advocating policies that encourage work and created jobs is part of how we love others. Of course, we could also mention advocating pro-life legislation to save the lives of unborn children (see Ex. 20:13). 

 

Remember that the New Testament calls us to live out our love for others in concrete ways to demonstrate its reality (James 1:27; 2:14-26; 1 John 3:11-4:12). 

 

Involvement In The Public Square Signals a Wrong Focus For Salvation

Many times throughout the last forty plus years I have heard the argument made that involvement in the public arena necessarily signals a person is trusting in Washington, D.C., for example, for salvation. Though this argument is often made, I have known very few people for whom this is true—and I have known a lot of people who value engagement in the public square. 

 

Again, the response is simply this: Such involvement is not what will save us. It is the outworking of our truly knowing Jesus Christ as Savior, and loving others because we love our Lord (cf. Mt. 22:37-40). 

 

Because God Is Sovereign Over Who Is In Office, It Doesn’t Matter What We Do

It is true that God is absolutely sovereign over who is in office or not (cf. Dan. 2:20-21). Yet, it is equally true that God uses means to accomplish the outcomes he has decreed. In other words, he ordains both the means and the end. And so, the Apostle Paul can, at one and the same time, teach that God works all things after the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11) and yet at the same time we reap what we sow (Gal. 6:7). The Bible teaches that we must believe both and that God’s sovereignty is never to negate the importance of our choices and actions. 

 

One other point on this is that the same argument could be made for feeding the hungry or helping the homeless:  Well, God will decide where they end up and how. So, we don’t need to do anything. Yet, we never make this argument. We somehow know we need to be involved in this. And yet, when it comes to the political arena, it just seems like we are looking for any excuse we can to justify our lack of involvement. 

 

Involvement Inevitably Will Make Some People Think They Are Not Welcome In Our Church 

It certainly is possible this can happen. But let’s be clear. I have experienced several times having gay or Lesbian people attend churches I have pastored for a time and leaving after a while (even though I never took up during that particular time the subject of homosexuality). It was simply the conviction of the Spirit through the Word of God that bothered them. Yet, at the same time, I could point to many more people who have come to churches I have pastored and who differed with all kinds of biblical teachings and yet have come to submit to them all due to the work of the Holy Spirit in them. 

 

Since God changes people by His Spirit working through his Word, in response to prayer, and usually among his people, and since God calls us to be faithful to believe and to act upon his biblical truth, we dare not be disobedient. 

 

In the long-run, God will bless our faithfulness to preach and stand for the whole counsel of his Word and it also is most likely the only way to see revival and reform in our culture.

 

Joyfully Engaging The Public Square With You For His Glory,

 

Tom Barnes

Sunday Leftovers From Luke 10:13-15

In Sunday’s sermon on Luke 10:13-24, we saw the following in verses 13-15: 

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.

 

There are four implications from this text that we did not have time to cover. Here they are. 

 

First, there are different levels of judgment for those who will be in hell, just as there will be different levels of rewards to those in heaven (see also Mt. 5:19; 11:22, 24; Luke 20:47; Mt. 11:22, 24; Rev. 2:23). No one should be comforted by this—as if you conclude that you will be under the least level of judgment. Instead, it should be a warning to those who have so many benefits, growing up under the hearing of the gospel,  and facing the worst judgment in hell!

 

Second, we are reminded that God is omniscient, knowing all things and having all wisdom (see also Ps. 139:1-6; Jer. 32:19; Rom. 11:33). What we discover here in Luke 10:13 is that God not only knows all that happens and will happen. He also knows all that would happen if there were different events preceding that outcome. Jesus displays divine knowledge here in that he knows that if Tyre and Sidon would have seen the mighty works of Jesus done among them, they would have repented and trusted in him in a large-scale manner across their cities. 

 

Third, we see that even though God is aware of a set of events that would have led to the faith and repentance of Tyre and Sidon, for reasons known only to him, he did not decree these events. This demonstrates that God does not decree what happens in a manner dependent upon man’s future choices. The ultimate moving force is found in the decrees of God (his sovereign will of decree), not human choices. 

 

Fourth, we discover especially in these verses that cultures of cities and/or countries can have an impact upon how citizens think and respond (or don’t respond) to the gospel (this is implied in Isaiah 25:3 and Acts 17:16 also). In other words, it appears to be the case that Jesus is affirming that in Chorazin and Bethsaida there were cultural influences that led to their large-scale rejection of Jesus and the kingdom. Most likely this influence revolves around shared false expectations about the coming Christ, as well as a false elevated view of their own standing before God—all which led to the thought they did not need a Christ and Savior like Jesus. Conversely, if a different set of cultural influencers were present in Tyre and Sidon, there would have been a wide-scale turning to Christ, just as there was a wide-scale turning to God in Nineveh, as seen in Jonah. 

 

If I am correct about this fourth implication, it demonstrates to us the importance of shaping the public square through things like education and public policies. Of course, these are not absolute, nor do they form a sure-fire formula. After all, the New Testament church was born out of two key cultural influences (the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds) that were antagonistic to Christian doctrine. Likewise, in our own time we see the church growing much in places as antagonistic to Christianity as can be imagined, such as North Korea and China. These examples remind us God is God and we are not. Nevertheless, we should also remember the strong positive influence Christianity has had upon cultures, that in turn, have had positive influence on the spread of Christianity in those cultures (e.g. 16^th c. Germany and Geneva, Switzerland, as well as 18^th c. colonial America). 

 

By way of summary, we can say these four implications bring two other discoveries. To begin, many theological concepts arise as secondary implications in texts. They may not be the primary thrust of the passage, but they are nonetheless present. Finally, we see the importance of paying careful attention to the details of Bible texts we read or study. 

 

Joyfully Discovering God’s Truth In His Word With You,

 

Tom Barnes

The Boat Has Drifted: Why I Am Openly Partisan For The Sake Of The Gospel And My Neighbor, Part 2

An older definition of the noun, “partisan,” is, “An adherent to a party” (Webster’s 1828). The adjective, then, would describe someone as being united in opinion or conviction with others. In that sense of the word, I am very committed to the worldview known as orthodox, confessing Christianity. In other words, I am “partisan” when it comes to: 

• The belief that there is absolute truth (John 8:32;14:6).

 

• The belief that the one God in three persons, as revealed in the Scriptures, is the God who is there (Mt. 28:19). 

 

• The belief there is only way to be forgiven, reconciled to, and thus to know God, and that is through faith in Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 16:31). 

 

• The belief that we are created in the image of God, as male and female (Gen. 1:26-28). 

 

• The belief that the Bible is from God, always true, and the only ultimate binding source of divine authority (John 10:35; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

 

I could add more but the point is sufficiently made. Any Christian who stands upon the foundation of biblical truth adheres to clear convictions that are opposite what many in our culture currently believe. What Scripture calls me to do in regard to such people is to love them (e.g. Mt. 22:27-40). It is not to agree with them or to be unified with them. 

 

In fact, if I love them, the Bible teaches that I will not only speak the truth to them (Mark 6:34), I will also seek to address their physical or material needs even when they are not favorable toward me (Luke 10:25-37; James 1:27). You might say that I am partisan about loving others in biblical ways, even those who differ from me. 

 

The Bible teaches we are to speak truth to others, help those who have been attacked, hurt, and left for dead (Luke 10:25-37); meet the needs of widows and orphans (James 1:27); seek to prevent babies from being killed (Ex. 20:13); and feed people when they are hungry (Mt. 25:31-46). Since this is the case, would it not stand to reason that if we can have influence upon our government such that we encourage them to do their job of protecting law abiding citizens and punishing those who are breaking the law and hurting others (Rom. 13:1-7), if we can encourage our government to order things such that more jobs are created and so people can provide for the needs of self and family—a situation that provides greater dignity than having to rely on handouts (Gen. 2:15; Prov. 16:26; Eph. 4:28), and if we can influence our government to preserve and view life as sacred, should we not do this? And if we should do all this, how can we not be partisan? How can we stay in the middle? Or even more, how can we be unified with those who believe the opposite? 

 

I am not arguing for being unloving in how we go about what we do. But I do believe that the Church has been silenced in letting our light shine to God’s glory (Matthew 5:16) and to the benefit of others, all because we have bought the lie, “We must stay in the middle, we must be non-partisan, and we must just preach Jesus and not worry about these other things.” 

 

I would agree that our priority is preaching Jesus and making disciples. But disciples do what Jesus commanded (Mt. 28:20), that is, they keep and obey God’s Word (Luke 11:28). In fact, the very reason we need the gospel Paul defines so well in Romans 3:21-5:21 is that we are sinners who fall short of God’s will and of glorifying him (Romans 1:18-3:20). And, when we have responded to the true gospel of the true Savior in faith and repentance, it results in our obeying our Savior and Lord (Rom. 6:1-8:39; 12:1-15:33). 

 

When we advocate for truth (and do it in love) in our culture we are laying ground for people to see why they need Jesus, we are laying ground for people being able to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5), and we are practicing love like Christ. And, when we advocate for good public policy, we are practicing the good works that flow from true salvation (Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 2:11-14). 

 

So, is it sub-Christian to adhere to and advocate for those in government or running for government office who hold to these same convictions?  I argue it is sub-Christian to remain in the middle, uncommitted, and quiet. 

 

The reality is that though neither one of the two major parties in this country is perfect (they are far from it!), there is one party whose platform comes the closest to what I have outlined above. There is also one party that agrees with virtually nothing I have outlined above. 

 

I end up voting for those in the political arena whom I believe come the closest to those positions that honor God and help people most. These are expressions of the gospel of Christ in me that lead me to love God with all I have and other people as myself. 

 

So yes, I am unashamedly partisan and will advocate such partisanship for the good and future of this country, the benefit of its citizens, and for the glory of God. 

 

Joyfully Following Our Lord Who Is The Truth,

 

Tom Barnes

The Boat Has Drifted: Why I Am Openly Partisan For The Sake Of The Gospel And My Neighbor, Part 1

Imagine that you are on a large boat that was tied to a dock. You have been on it for days, enjoying the company of family and friends. Yet, what you are unaware of is the fact that the boat came untethered two days ago and slowly but surely you have floated out to sea. To make matters worse a storm is gathering that will put everyone on the boat at risk. 

 

This is a good picture of where we are at in the United States. We are acting like it is still the 1960’s or 70’s and we are in a place in which the Church can still say, “We must not take sides in political issues. There are good debates to be had between two parties, we don’t want to make it look like we side with one or the other, lest we make it seem like a person is not welcome just because they are part of a certain political party, and besides there is virtually no difference between the two parties.” 

 

Yet, the reality is that the boat of our culture has come untethered, has drifted out to sea, and though many of us might feel like we are still in a place at the dock that allows us to say those kinds of things, the reality is that due primarily to one party in our country we have drifted out to sea and face destruction if something doesn’t change. 

 

It was true at one time that members of that party (think John F. Kennedy and Patrick Moynihan) were such that both parties could have legitimate and good debates on issues. Those days are gone. Consider that party now stands for: 

1. As many abortions (aka murders of unborn children) in our nation as they can make happen. No longer do they stand just for legal, safe, rare abortions.

 

2. Judging people in the opposite way that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. argued for. He longed for the day that people can be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. This party now stands for the opposite!

 

3. Rewarding people with bad credit to purchase a house through an FHA loan by having those with good credit scores pay more for their loans.

 

4. Rewarding college students for not paying their loans and rewarding people for entering our country illegally.

 

5. Lawlessness in our cities.

 

6. Human trafficking that has taken place due to this administration inviting people by word and action to travel weeks to the border of the United States and to enter illegally.

 

7. Sexual exploitation and abuse, as well as a massive increase of Fentanyl deaths also due to their open border policy. 

 

8. That males can become females and vice versa, and that children and youth can  make such changes without informing their parents. 

 

9. That the mutilation of perfectly healthy bodies, along with the amputation of perfectly healthy organs, is fine and something to be pursued as people “transition”.

 

10. Truth is unimportant. All that matters is “spinning the truth” for the purpose of political gain.  

 

11. Energy and economic policies that have blatantly disregarded not only the wisdom of biblical law, but that of natural law and, as a result, have hurt the most vulnerable among us and have stressed the majority of families financially throughout the country. 

 

What the Democrat party in general and this administration in particular stand for are stances that are no longer viable options for debate, or at least they should not be—at least in the eyes of Christians who believe in the authority and truthfulness of the Bible, or even those who believe in the validity of natural law. 

 

It is because of these realities that I will no longer be quiet about the church’s silence. I will no longer stand by as Christian after Christian argues they cannot be involved or take sides for the sake of the gospel. 

 

Let me be clear. A person does not have to be part of a particular party to be a Christian. There are genuine Christians who still vote as Democrats. All people are welcome at our church no matter what your political affiliation is. Be all that as it may, I can no longer, through silence, act as if Christians ought to be in the middle, act like both political parties are equally bad or equally good, nor can I act like the loving thing to do is to be quiet and just “preach Jesus” while we act as if nothing else matter! 

 

The current Democrat party in general and this administration in particular are morally bankrupt and make it impossible to stand for either one as a true Christian who desires to stand consistenly with the Bible in any way. 

 

Church, we must stop trying to act as if we are “woke” and we must truly be awakened, through a spiritual awakening. We must return to believing in and teaching truth. We must stop just trying to get along with everyone and must begin speaking truth no matter the cost. The time is past and has drifted out to sea when we can act as if we can have nice discussions about benign differences. The differences do matter, Christians!  They matter for our mission. They matter for the gospel, they matter when it comes to loving other people. 

 

In my next post I will share more specifically why  I am encouraging the church to be partisan, to be unified in Christ with one another, but not to be unified with a morally bankrupt political party and administration. 

 

Concerned About The Health Of The Church And the Country,

Tom Barnes