Week 5 - Unconditional Election (Part 2)

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works, but because of him who calls, she was told the older shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob I have loved, but Esau I hated.

" Okay, so even before Jacob and Esau are born, God already said, hey, I'm choosing the younger one. I'm going against the normal convention. And Paul points out, look, this is before they had done anything good or bad. This wasn't with a view to, you know, Jacob was better than Esau or something like that. This was so that God's purpose according to election might continue. Right? This would be unconditional why God chooses Jacob over Esau. Now, some have argued that, well, wait a second, but this isn't talking about, you know, Jacob being chosen for salvation itself, you know, but this is talking about him being chosen as the heir in the Messianic line. And, you know, this isn't just talking about Jacob and Esau as individuals, but about them as sort of the heads of the nations that would come from them. And so we get to spend a lot of time talking about that. And I would kind of want to debate some of that. But I think at the end of the day, that's still kind of moot. Because even the nations descended from Jacob and Esau are still composed of individuals who are affected by this. And further, you know, Paul, his overarching point is getting back to talking about what about these Jews in his day, who are not saved. I was talking about individual Jews who are descended from Abraham according to the flesh but are not chosen for salvation. And so I think either way, you know, Paul is still saying that the way God unconditionally chose Jacob rather than Esau to be the heir is parallel to the way God unconditionally chooses us for salvation from before the foundation of the world. So, I don't think you can get around the fact this comes back to unconditional election of individuals, like that's at the heart of this. And one of the clues that I think, you know, we can see that we're understanding, we're tracking with Paul correctly here is the objection that he anticipates in verse 14. So he's making this point, God chooses some, not because of the good we do, but because of his own purpose of election. And then in verse 14 he says,

what shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?

He anticipates the very same objection we're wrestling with. Is God unjust? Is this unfair in a way that's wrong for God to choose like this? And Paul answers with this emphatic, by no means. And then he explains why in verse 15, for God says to Moses,

I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy.

And notice the key word there is mercy. He repeats it again. And again, and then the synonym compassion. And I think that what that cues us is that the key to understanding why there's no injustice on God's part in unconditionally electing some to salvation is because it's a matter of mercy. You see, you can't charge someone with injustice. You can charge someone with injustice for withholding justice. You can charge someone with injustice for administering justice unfairly or administering justice with partiality or favoritism, but you can't charge someone with injustice for withholding mercy. That's not how mercy works. Mercy is free. God can have mercy on whomever he chooses to have mercy. He can have compassion on whomever he chooses to have compassion. I mean, just as an illustration, imagine a couple that travels to Africa and is moved to find starving orphaned children. And so they adopt one. Well, have they committed injustice? Was it unfair of them to choose this child but not another? If they weren't going to adopt all of them, does that mean they should have just let them all starve? Is that unjust? Well, intuitively, get this. No, that's not how mercy works. is free. Similarly, if someone stole my car, crashes it, and then I choose to have mercy and I say, you know what? I'm not going to make you pay for it. Your debt is forgiven. Does that thereby obligate me to have to show that same mercy to anyone else in the future who might steal my car and crash it? Of course not, right? In the same way, God has every right to choose to show mercy to one but not another because it's mercy. There's no injustice in that. To put this another way, when God chooses some for salvation but not others, well, the elect receive mercy. The non-elect receive justice. No one receives injustice. No one is receiving anything worse than they deserve. And so I think in light of this, if this doctrine of unconditional election doesn't sit well with us, well, one possible reason could be because we haven't fully come to terms with the fact that salvation is totally and purely of mercy. It's not earned. You know, go back to the premise of the original question. You know, shouldn't a just God give the same opportunity for salvation to everyone? Well, I think the better we understand sin, the more we understand what we actually deserve, the more we really should see, no, that should be turned around to why should a just God give any opportunity for salvation to anyone? I mean, if you heard that the governor had just pardoned a notorious murderer, I mean, would your initial reaction be, how unjust? I mean, he should have pardoned all the murderers. Of course not. You might question the justice, but you would be thinking, I mean, why should even one notorious murderer be pardoned? And of course, that's why there had to be a cross. That's why justice had to be satisfied by Jesus bearing the punishment we deserve so that we could freely receive this mercy. And then even further, I mean, remember the fact that not only do we not deserve salvation itself, we didn't even deserve the opportunity for salvation either. God doesn't owe equal opportunity for salvation to everyone. He doesn't owe any opportunity for salvation To anyone. I mean, it's by God's sheer mercy and grace that there ever was a plan of salvation. That Jesus even came at all. He's not under some obligation to give that opportunity to every person on the face of the earth. It's by sheer mercy that we've been given the opportunity of salvation. It's by sheer mercy that we have been actually saved. And I think this doctrine of unconditional election should really help to reinforce and clarify for us just how free and pure the mercy of God is, that salvation is of God's mercy. We contribute nothing. We have no claim to it based on anything we've done, anything in us. It's the mercy of God alone. Well, at this point, maybe you're thinking, OK, well, I can see that unconditional election isn't unjust. I can see that God didn't have to save anybody, and he's free to only save some if he wants, but that leads to another objection. How does this square with God's love? It's not just a question of what is God justified in doing, what's defensible, but it's also a question of What should we expect from a loving and a compassionate God like him? And if unconditional election means that God can choose to save whomever he wishes, why wouldn't he choose everybody? Why would a loving God let anyone perish? All right, so let's think about this second question. Why wouldn't a loving God choose everyone? And I want to be honest that I think this is a harder question than the first. But again, I want to start by pointing out that the Arminian doesn't have an easy answer for this either. I think this is a question that all Christians are going to have to struggle with in some way. Because while the Arminian can say, look, God doesn't choose all of us because even though he loves us all the same, many of us don't choose him. Well, the challenge for them is that that ultimately is going to boil down to saying, God doesn't choose everyone because he'd rather let us go to hell than override our free will. Right? I mean, it comes back to God is, you know, he doesn't want to override free will. So therefore he lets many people choose to reject him. But, but of course that, that calls into question the limits of God's love as well. I mean, can you imagine a parent saying to their suicidal child, You know, I really hope you won't kill yourself, but respecting your free will is more important to me than intervening to prevent you from making that decision. I mean, no parent would do that. You know, or think about, you know, in J.F. Hacker's book, Evangelism and Sovereignty of God, you know, he points out, you know, how do people pray for their loved ones? You know, have you ever heard someone pray, you know, oh God, Please encourage this person to believe in you, but make sure you respect their free will. If they want to reject you, don't interfere. Of course not. We pray in no uncertain terms, God, save them. God, we love this person. Won't you step in and change their will if you have to, because we want them to be saved. And so from a reformed perspective, we're going to say, well, yes, God loves everybody the way that the Arminian is talking about. He invites everybody to come to him. But when it comes to the elect, God loves them with an even greater love. He loves them with a love by which he determines to intervene and change our wills to bring us to himself. Right? So unconditional election is saying God's love is even greater than that for some. But again, the question is, well, why doesn't God unconditionally elect everybody? Why doesn't he change everybody's will, if that's what he could do. And I don't think this is a question that the Bible gives us a full answer to. But probably the closest thing would be if you just keep reading in Romans chapter 9. So picking up in verse 17, Paul continues,

for the scripture says to Pharaoh, for this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles.

Now, I just want to point out three things here. First, notice that it says God raises up men like Pharaoh so that his name might be proclaimed in all the earth. He raised up Pharaoh so that his power and his glory might be revealed in bringing Pharaoh down. So why does God not choose to save everybody? Well, because then there would be no Pharaohs. There would be no villains for God to display his glory in destroying. And take note that this is not it's not like God acts in love when he saves us and then he acts without love when he judges Pharaoh. Because he is displaying his own love for righteousness, his love for his own glory, his love for the victims and those who have been oppressed by Pharaoh when he judges him. So God's love is still on display, even in the demonstration of his wrath, even in the outpouring of his justice. God is still acting in love. And I think the first thing we see is, well, it's on some level for God's own glory. God chooses not to save everyone because he raises people up like Pharaoh so that his name might be proclaimed in all the earth, even when he hardens their hearts and judges them. Now, a second thing to notice here, we need to be humble before God and not question or criticize him for things we don't fully understand. Look at verse 19. Paul anticipates there another objection.

Why does God still find fault? For who can resist his will?

You know, if God hardened Pharaoh's heart, well, how can God find fault with Pharaoh? And notice Paul's response.

But who are you, oh man, to answer back to God? Will the clay say to the sculptor, why have you made me like this?

And I think this is a reminder to us that we need to have the right attitude when we approach God. We ought not come to God with an attitude that demands, oh God, you better explain yourself or else I'm not gonna trust you. We need to come humble. Recognizing he's the potter, we're the clay, we need to come humble with a posture of faith, seeking understanding. God, I already trust you. I know you're good. I know you're just. I know you're wise. Could you help me to understand? And then even as we come to the limits of what God has revealed, we need to have a posture that says, you know what, and there's going to be mystery, there's going to be a boundary where I can't fully peer over that wall, I can't fully understand. How is it that, you know, the responsibility of Pharaoh and his heart and the sovereignty of God and how those fit together, we can't fully understand that. And we need to have the humility to be okay with that. And to say on some level, God chooses not to save everyone. And we can say some things about that, but we can't fully explain God's reasoning. And we have to be okay with that. And then third, I want you to notice in verse 22, that Paul suggests that part of the reason God doesn't save everyone is so that we might more fully experience and appreciate the riches of God's glory. And I think at least a part of what Paul is getting at there is that the sheer glory of our salvation is clarified by the fact that not everyone receives it. You know, hell is not just a hypothetical thing that could have existed, but God just saved absolutely everyone. Like, no, hell is a very real thing, that sadly, tragically, people we know will go there. and yet to realize God has spared us from that. He has delivered us. That kind of makes clear, that highlights the sheer glorious mercy and grace that we have received. And so at the end of the day, what do we say to this question, why wouldn't a loving God choose everyone? Well, I've given some partial answers. I've said that we can't fully explain it, But, you know, at the end of the day, I think the teaching of unconditional election highlights that while we cannot fully explain why God doesn't set his love equally on all, we can know that God has set his love on us in a way that's beyond compare. It highlights that when Romans 8 says,

nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord

, it means that in the very fullest possible sense of the word. Nothing can separate us from his love. Unconditional election just makes that so clear. Not even us, ourselves, not our wills, nothing can separate us from his love. And that brings us thirdly and finally, and briefly to a third objection. So if God already chose who will be saved, what difference do our choices make? You know, I've heard unconditional election characterized as, well, you know, this non-elect person is predetermined for destruction without any hope of salvation even before he's born. What difference could his choices ever make? Now, first of all, again, I want to think about Arminianism because even there, well, God already knows who's going to choose him. He knows who's going to be saved. So even in Arminianism, The future is fixed, right? Even in Arminianism, the unsaved person, God foreknows infallibly that they will not choose him. And so before they're even born, it's fixed that they will not be saved. So you can't just totally sidestep this no matter what you do. But whether you're Arminian or Calvinist, you have to say that just because God foreknows or foreordains the future, and therefore our choices are fixed in some sense, that doesn't mean they're not real choices. That doesn't mean our choices don't have real effects. In other words, and speaking from a Calvinistic perspective, the key point is that when God ordains the end, such as our salvation, he also ordains the means, right? It's not that God chooses someone for salvation and that they're gonna be saved just sort of regardless of whether anyone shared the gospel with them. No, when God chooses you for salvation, he also ordains somebody to share the gospel with you, right? There's means through which these ends that God has ordained are fulfilled. And that's why our choices do matter. The choices we make are the means through which God's purposes and God's plans come to fulfillment. And that's why a right understanding of unconditional election shouldn't stifle evangelism at all. Right now, for one, we have no way of knowing who the non-elect are, so we never should say, oh, well, that person's not elect, so I'm not going to share the gospel with them. But secondly, we do know that some people are elect and that the way God has ordained for them to be saved is us sharing the gospel with them. So we know there's people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation who will be saved. And we have the privilege to go and tell them this good news of salvation. And we know that no matter how hard people's hearts are, no matter how many thousands of times you've heard the gospel and people are unresponsive and you would just want to give up, this reminds us, no, there's people out there that God has chosen. And sooner or later, you're going to share the gospel with people that respond. Sooner or later, you and I get to be the conduits through which this salvation comes to pass. What an encouragement to share the gospel. You know, this is why when we read, for example, in Acts 18, it says,

and the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, don't be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent. For I am with you and no one will attack you to harm you. For I have many people in this city who are my people.

Some of these people I've chosen, Paul, and you get to tell them the gospel. That was an encouragement to him to evangelize. Or in 2 Timothy 2 verse 10, Paul says,

Therefore, I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

May we do the same. Striving to endure everything for the sake of the elect, knowing that then they too will obtain this salvation and we get to be a part of that. So what an encouragement this should be to us. Well, I have already gone over time. So unfortunately, I'll have to entertain your questions privately afterward, but please close in prayer with me. Father, we thank you for your word. We thank you for the greatness of your love, a love that stretches back to before the foundation of the world and a love that reaches forward to all eternity and a love that will never let us go. How we praise you for that. We pray that we would appreciate that more and more and that we would count it a great joy and privilege to get to go and tell the people that you have chosen, the elect or even now among out in Charlottesville and around scattered around the world that we would be faithful in telling them this good news of salvation. that they too may obtain this salvation together with us. It's in Jesus' name we pray, amen.