All Sermons

Doctrines of Grace Part 2 - Unconditional Election By David Calderwood

It's the basic desire of human relationship to be loved unconditionally.
We long to have someone take an interest in us, initiate relationship with us.
And in spite of knowing the worst about us, to make a commitment to love us with a strong love that never is withdrawn in spite of our failures.
Because that gives us as individuals the security we all crave.
We long to be loved unconditionally.
Now that my friends is the emotional and relational expression of this doctrine I'm going to talk about, the doctrine of election.
Because whatever else we say, and there's lots we can say and must say, at the heart of the Bible's teaching on election, God's election,
is God's strong unconditional love for sinful people like you and me.
Simply put, the doctrine of election tells us that God has taken the initiative to love us when there was nothing lovely about us.
It tells us that He loved us long before we loved Him.
It tells us that He loved us and determined that He would save us or, in other words, establish new relationship with us forever.
When His justice could rightly and properly have seen our destruction.
It tells us that we love Him because He first loved us.
My friends, I want to suggest to you this morning that the doctrine of election is the language of love.
And yet here's the problem which I invite you to engage in this morning as we come to think about this doctrine.
Because, sad to say, this doctrine is so commonly dismissed by many who call themselves Christians.
By many who say, yes, I love the Scriptures.
And the common reason why it's dismissed is because supposedly the doctrine of election makes God harsh
and would have seemed to appear to make God unloving.
Some would even say it makes God into a monstrous tyrant.
It's a topic that certainly provokes anger and is certain to provoke angry arguments and divisions among Christians.
And that is strange to my ears because I say again the doctrine of election is the language of love.
So the question is why? Why are people so hot under the collar about it? Why are people so dismissive of it?
And I'm talking Christians here.
Now that's the first question for your response groups. I don't know the answer to it so I thought I would just get you guys to work on the answer.
And I really don't know the answer to it but I'm going to give you a couple of thoughts perhaps to get you started.
One from either side of the ledger as it were.
For many who are opposed to the doctrine of election, I suspect that a lot of the hate is about a misunderstanding of what the doctrine is.
Or if not misunderstanding, then just prejudice.
Or if not prejudice, then getting hung up on some of the problems, philosophical problems that attach to this particular teaching.
And these I think have been allowed to cover the whole view of this doctrine so they sort of just chuck everything out.
But on the other side of the ledger, for many who are passionate supporters of the teaching, then I think they've actually presented the doctrine of election in a really awful way.
I've been part of churches and been part of conversations where Christians have used, thrown this in to smack people across the jowls with it.
In an arrogant, opinionated, I know more than you do type attitude.
And I think that also, not only does it turn off a lot of people, but I think it also reflects a severe misunderstanding of the doctrine of election.
And the reformed camp, the stables I come from, have a lot to answer for in this regard I believe.
So friends, this morning, as I've tried again to get you to engage in this subject, I want to make a plea.
Regardless of your background, what you've heard in the past, where your position now is, can I plead with you today to hear God's word on this matter?
Before you form your conclusions, and if necessary, consider for the first time, and if necessary, reconsider your views and attitudes to this particular teaching.
A teaching which I say illustrates the love of God in the most amazing way.
Now it's not just an emotional and relational expression, although I think that's where we actually ease into it in the most immediate way.
There's also a strong logic to the doctrine of election.
It's entirely sourced in God's grace and mercy, and that of itself ties us into last week's theme of total inability.
And the logic works like this. Since people are spiritually dead, that is, spiritually dead in terms of relationship with God,
as we saw last week, unable and unwilling either to recognise their situation or indeed even to do something about it.
Since they're under God's wrath and condemnation in this state of deadness, as we saw in Ephesians last week,
and since God is determined, and he tells us right through his word, he's determined to achieve his purpose in his world by undoing the effect of sin
and by having a great community called the church who would be in good relationship with him, who would gladly live under his rule and gladly serve him and obey him.
Since that's all true, God's purpose, man's state of inability, then, next step in the logic, then the only hope is for God to act, to make it all happen.
And again we saw last week that God has acted, Ephesians chapter 2, but God in his great love and mercy acted to do what? To make us alive in Christ.
God has acted to make or restore relationship with him and restore to relationship with him those who are dead.
His action is driven by his great love, not just love but pure grace in that God's action is totally contrary to what you or I deserve as sinful people.
Since then, hence the fact of God's unconditional election, that is God choosing, or in other words, you might not be too much familiar with the word election, but you'll know the word probably predestination.
Since that's true of us, since it's true of God's purpose, then God must act, hence the fact that we must have this notion of God setting forth by his choice to achieve his purpose,
some whom he deems to save, when they've got nothing to attract his attention, nothing to merit his attention or love, simply because God wants to get the glory he's determined to get for himself through saving a great multitude.
And so the second in our series, unconditional election.
Fact, and this is just a very quick sort of definition of what we're dealing with here.
Fact, election is not something squeezed unreasonably from one or two obscure verses in some obscure part of the Bible.
It's often portrayed as that, but that's far from the truth, because the fact is that this notion of God's choice, God's purpose in salvation, saving those who don't deserve to be saved, spans the Bible from start to finish.
And both the Old and New Testament detail God's plan of salvation being worked out in history, and God's action in choosing who will be saved is integral to it.
You will find in other words this notion of election on every page of the Bible.
It cannot be dismissed. It cannot be ignored. It is not just some construct from some bizarre theologian.
And what I might add then is that when you read the Bible it's a non-issue. It's a big issue among Christians today, but when you read the Bible it's a non-issue.
That is, there's not a single place you'll find in the Bible where the doctrine of election is mentioned, and then in brackets a couple of sentences that suggest embarrassment, or confusion, or shame.
Really, I'm writing all this stuff down, but look, I really want to apologize for it.
It's a non-issue in terms of scripture because it's such an integral part of God acting to achieve his plan of salvation.
In fact, it's a sovereign act of God, the immediate purpose of which is to save sinners and create the great community of loyal, obedient servants called the church.
The ultimate purpose of which that is creating the church is that God might win the glory and honor that he rightly deserves in this world.
Now, that does not mean that we understand everything we might like to understand about God's secret will in this doctrine of election.
But what it does mean is that we understand everything we need to know to see how this is the expression of God's love in the achieving of God's purpose.
In fact, election is a free and unconditional act of God's grace and mercy. It is not based on anything in the person chosen.
It's not that God sort of looked into the future and said, ah, up there I can see that, you know, Joe Blue, he'll actually believe the gospel and therefore I'll choose him.
And so God is the responder. No, the Bible never speaks like that.
It's not either that some people are rather, well, God sort of looked at all the humanity and he says, well, okay, I'll nominate him and her and her and him because, well, they're less dead.
And because they're somehow or other slightly less dead, then they're somehow or other more appealing to me and I'll choose them. No, the scripture never speaks like that.
God's election is a sovereign act of his will without regard to anything in the person chosen.
Scripture says it very clearly and repeatedly. Entirely God's gracious, sovereign, everlasting love, determining to save into his family forever some from among those who deserve only his condemnation and destruction.
And final fact towards the definition is that understanding God's electing love, my friends, is not just a theory for theological colleges or wearisome scholars.
This doctrine has immediate practical implications and benefits.
Understanding that we are loved with an everlasting love without condition and are eternally secure in God's own family should prompt a passionate worship of God.
How amazing is that? If you know yourself as I know myself, the language of love is just overwhelming.
Ephesians chapter one, verse three takes up that very issue of worshipping, whole of life worship in response to God's election.
Or another point, Romans chapter eight, verses 28 to 33, election is what gives us assurance and absolute comfort, real comfort, in the monstrosities of situations of life.
If God has loved us as God is for us, then who can be against us? Who can bring a charge against us?
There's assurance and comfort in this doctrine of God's love, this doctrine of election.
Colossians chapter three, verse 12, 2 Thessalonians chapter two, and you're going to do more of this in the response group, so if you don't get this you can sort of look at it a bit more in the response groups.
Urges thankful obedient living in response to nothing other than the doctrine of election.
Nothing stuffy, nothing theoretical about this doctrine, it's immediate and practical outworking of God's love and therefore we'll have immediate and practical outworkings in our lives, both in terms of benefit and in terms of challenge.
Now, having sort of spoken the logic and tried to give something of a definition to bring it to a manageable size, and there's lots more that could be said there,
I want now to do a case study, as it were, in this whole doctrine of election to see how it works based on Romans chapter nine, the passage that was read to us.
And so I'd like you to open your Bibles if you haven't already opened them at Romans chapter nine, see if I can demonstrate the sorts of stuff I've already said.
Now I need to give some context to Romans chapter nine.
Paul's whole letter is spelling out the power of God for salvation in the gospel.
Chapter one verse 16 and 17, that states his main theme.
So everything he writes is to do with just the wonderful power and love of God in the gospel, salvation.
Beginning at chapter one verse 18, Paul makes clear that every single person, including the Jews, is under God's wrath and judgment.
Why?
Because not ever, not a single person lives according to what they know about God, according to the revelation of God they have.
People have different lots of revelation, different amounts of revelation, but the issue is that whatever amount you have, people don't live according to it.
People actually try and suppress the truth they have about God, and for that God rightly condemns them.
It's different language, but the same idea as Ephesians chapter two. They're dead in sin.
And then from chapter three verse 21 on, Paul starts to spell out what the gospel is, then he details the results of the gospel, then he details the effect of the gospel in the believer's life.
And all of that culminates in chapter eight verses 28 through to 39.
What's often called the golden chain of salvation.
Where Paul, as it were, summarizes the whole of God's process of salvation and shows how each stage is inseparably linked to the next.
And particularly verse 29 and 30 of chapter eight.
For those God foreknew, that is those whom God loved in advance, he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of the Son.
In verse 38, those he predestined, he also called.
Those he called, he also justified or put right with them.
And those he justified, he also glorified that he's made them holy and brought them home to be with them forever.
So there's the summary of Paul's understanding of God's process of theology, of salvation.
From unconditional love and election through to being home with God in heaven forever.
And Paul's very clear that the gospel is about God's initiative to save a sinful people.
Or again, in the words of Ephesians chapter two, Paul spelled out in eight chapters here the process by which God makes people alive.
Then in chapter nine to eleven, Paul addresses a question that he anticipates folk will have in response to what he said.
The question goes something like this, if the gospel is true, then why haven't the Jews believed it?
The question brings into relief God's credibility, God's reputation.
Because it works like this, you see, if salvation is really about God's activity in a person's life, beginning with election, then calling, saving and keeping,
how come that God, it appears that God hasn't been able to make it work in the Jews, who after all were God's own special people,
and by implication if he can't make it work in the Jews, how come it won't work anywhere else?
It's all very fine saying this Paul, but it doesn't look as if it's true, it doesn't look as if it's worked even with the Jews.
So God's credibility is at stake, and Paul gives an answer to that in three chapters, I'm going to look at some, just his preliminary answer in chapter nine.
Verses one to three, just walking through this really quickly. Verses one to three, Paul's heart broken.
Paul is absolutely heartbroken about the mass rejection of the gospel by his fellow Jews.
And he actually expresses his desperation, if he could do anything, including swap the position and him becoming under God's wrath,
he would do it if he could do anything to turn the situation around. Passionate language.
And the situation is even worse, verses four and five, when Paul reflects on all the privilege that the Jewish nation had in God's purposes, in God's history.
They had a special place, one nation among many nations. They had special privileges from Abraham right through to Christ.
Time after time after time after time, they had special revelations, special privileges, and yet in spite of all that, you'd think they would have believed if this was all going to work,
and yet they still by and large rejected the gospel of Jesus. Now here's the dilemma that comes out of that.
Given all these privileges and promises of salvation, then surely if what Paul had said was true, then the Jews would have been the first to acknowledge it and believe.
Surely the unbelief of the Jews calls into question everything Paul has said.
Now in verses six to thirteen then, Paul gives a very clear answer to that dilemma.
And his answer in simplest forms is no, in actual fact, when you look at it and understand it properly, God has done exactly what he promised to do.
God has achieved his purpose in salvation as he promised he would do it.
His main statement in verse six, first line there, first sentence of verse six, is that, well look guys, the first thing you need to realize is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with God's word.
God's word hasn't failed in any shape or form. Paul's completely confident that God has delivered on everything promised to the people of Israel.
But the question remains then and becomes even sharper focused. Well, how can you say that, Paul?
If God has delivered on his promises to save, how can those promises be intact and fulfilled given that virtually an insignificant number of Jews have actually responded and the vast majority of Jews have actually rejected the gospel?
Paul's answer is, look you've misunderstood God's promise. God never promised to save each and every individual Jew, each and every individual person in the nation of Israel.
The present situation was not because his salvation plan had failed but simply reflected God's pattern in salvation throughout the whole of history which God's people themselves had misunderstood.
Verses 6, 7 and 8. While God had, Paul concedes, God had chosen the nation of Israel from all other nations as the means to achieve his purpose in salvation,
the actual promise was never to every one of Abraham's natural biological descendants. Rather, the promise was as Abraham was chosen, so God would choose from his descendants.
In other words, the promise was to his spiritual descendants, not his biological descendants.
In other words, verse 8, God had chosen some individuals from within the nation of Israel and saved them as his promise had stated he would.
And only those chosen by God experienced God's saving mercy. The whole nation experiences wonderful privilege from God in terms of his common grace.
But only those chosen, says Paul, experience God's saving mercy and they're the true seed or spiritual descendants of Abraham.
And then Paul illustrates that. He says it's not too hard to grasp, you can see it. And he looks at the history of God's dealing with his people.
And Paul says, well God chose Isaac and passed over Ishmael even though Ishmael biologically should have been the one that carried the promise.
How does that work? Paul said, well God's exercising his sovereign choice.
Likewise, verse 10 through 13, God chose Jacob rather than Esau.
And he emphasizes there that that choice had absolutely nothing to do with human merit. That choice was made well before the twins were born.
But look at the context and why. The end of verse 11, in order that God's purpose in election might stand.
That is, to show that God's choosing, God's electing, predesting will is nothing to do with human merit.
But to do with God's purpose in salvation, which ultimately is to secure glory for himself.
And again, Paul, verses 24 through 29 then says, all of that is confirmed through the prophets.
So Paul's shown that this idea of God choosing is right across the length and breadth of scripture.
He cites evidence from the prophet Hosea and from Isaiah to show that God's purpose in salvation always reflect free and unconditional choice without regard to race or conduct or family lineage.
God chose Jews from among the nation of Israel, but God also chose Gentiles from outside the nation of Israel to be saved.
So Paul's point here, to draw the whole thing to a conclusion, and I realize there's a fairly complex argument in here, I've just had time to walk through it quickly.
But I think the point is this, that without hysteria, again without embarrassment, Paul states clearly that the fact that only some Jews have responded to God's offer of salvation in Jesus is explained by the doctrine of election.
It's explained by the sovereign act of God.
Now, if you're thinking as I'm thinking, and as Paul was thinking, then there'd be a couple of objections come to your mind.
There'd be more than two, but two major ones, and Paul addresses these in the passage. First one's in verse 14.
Paul anticipates people saying, well hang on a minute, if God chooses one and bypasses another, doesn't that make God unfair?
He chooses one to salvation and bypasses the other so that the other doesn't get salvation, doesn't get saved, but experiences wrath, judgment.
Is God being unfair?
Look at verses 15 and 16. Paul's answer is resounding, no, no why?
And he answers it from sort of two angles, he turns the diamond and gets two facets.
The first angle is this, that it's God's own nature, being God, to be free to show mercy as he pleases without any reference to people or what they've done.
And Paul says that very action of God is what you would expect from God, it shows God's character.
It shows on the one hand his compassion and his mercy.
And ultimately it shows his glory, because it shows that God is actually in charge of his world.
Both with respect to exercising compassion and mercy and also with respect to exercising judgment on those who deserve his judgment.
Further says Paul, justice and judgment also show God's power and holiness and ultimately his glory.
Verses 17 and 18. Now this is one of the big stumbling verses for those who ultimately want to dismiss election,
because in this verse, they're understanding this verse, they're acting to try and protect God from what they say is something that's really abhorrent.
That is, their understanding of this verse and their idea of hardening Pharaoh's heart is, in their mind, a thought that therefore God actually causes sin.
God's the author of sin and that can't be true.
How could it be that God would actually harden Pharaoh's heart and therefore in a sense create more evil?
So they try to protect God from that and think they have to reject the doctrine of election.
Let me try and work it out with you as we go along.
Pharaoh is an example that Paul uses here of how God can exercise mercy and compassion on the one hand and justice and judgment on the other hand,
both of which combine to bring God glory or either of which brings God glory.
And it works like this. Pharaoh was already hostile to God and God's purpose of salvation.
And eventually Pharaoh, in spite of God's word through Moses, decided to back himself against God's purpose and salvation,
against the Lord's agenda. And we're told in history that he suffered due punishment for that action,
which only showed God's power and control and total freedom to do what he purposed.
But here, as I say, Christians stumble on this. So what does it mean when it says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart?
It sounds as though God is then responsible for sin because it sounds as though God intervened directly in Pharaoh's heart
and created a new level of evil in the man, which then led to Pharaoh's actions, which then God punished him for.
So that would mean God is both the author of sin in Pharaoh's life and also unjust in that then he punishes Pharaoh for the very stuff he's created.
That's how the argument works.
You see, that would be at odds with scripture. Interpreting that verse that way would be at odds with the rest of scripture.
So it all comes down to your understanding, what does it mean to say that God hardens the heart?
Now I think what happens is that people end up wanting symmetry. So on the one hand if God intervenes with compassion and mercy
actively in a person's life, then there's an assumption that God actively intervenes to harden.
But that's not what we see right across scripture because we see that contrary to that, often when God hardens people in sin,
the action is the opposite, that he simply removes himself from a person's life, removing restraints.
And so it works like this. People are naturally hardwired to be hostile to God. That's sin.
If you look at the Old Testament, God's people often became dull and blind to God's word through the prophets.
What was God's typical response when God's people stopped listening to his word through the prophets?
God removed the prophets. God removed the word and left them to their own devices.
So in actual fact the hardening of the hearts of his people was actually not restricting their freedom or overtaking them somehow or other so that they just became puppets.
But hardening of the hearts was just removing his common grace, removing any restraint and as it were giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
And that I think is what's meant here in these verses.
The Lord simply stepped back from Pharaoh, removed his restraints of common grace and allowed Pharaoh's hostile heart to take its course.
And that idea I've just suggested to you is in line with the whole of scripture.
In fact it's consistent with what Paul writes in Romans chapter 1.
When he describes there in chapter verses 18 through to 36 where he describes how God's people, actually rather than coming to God based on what they know about him,
actually try and suppress the truth and hide from God even in the midst of being religious.
And God's response? He hands them over.
He withdraws from people and says well okay if that's what you want then I'll give you a mind that's free from any influence from my word.
I'll give you a lifestyle that's free from any influence from my word and the restraints get moved away.
And we see the outworking of that in Romans chapter 1.
Well there's a suggestion whether it's satisfactory or not I'm not sure but you'll have to think about it.
The next objection falls in verse 19.
If the final destiny of every person is in God's hands then again isn't God unfair if he then proceeds to punish those he refused to show mercy to?
Okay so people are guilty. God shows compassion on person A, B and C over here.
Well doesn't that mean that he's unfair if he then continues to punish person D, E and F?
Well verses 20 and 21 Paul's answer.
Paul's answer again appeals to God's characters and God is the creator.
He will do what he pleases but Paul then emphasized that what God pleases will actually be what is right because that's God's character.
And Paul uses this illustration with the clay and the potter which is usually misunderstood.
The illustration is often seen as being people with the clay being some good people and some bad people but that's not the case.
All of the clay that God is working with in the context of the illustration is sinful people.
So all of the clay is actually already under God's condemnation and rightly so.
So all of the people that God works with are already guilty criminals.
So Paul's point then is okay well if everybody is already condemned to death for their sin,
the fact that God chooses to pardon some while leaving others to face the punishment they already deserve isn't a question of justice or fairness.
In fact Paul's implication here is if God only showed fairness in dealing with people then the reality is that nobody would be saved because everybody deserves God's punishment.
So the fact that some are saved doesn't impinge on God's fairness or justice.
It simply highlights God's mercy and God's love and God's grace.
So therefore as Spurgeon said the amazing thing about these verses and about God's election is not that some are saved.
That's not the thing that should be stark for us but that any are saved.
That's what the amazing thing is here and the fact that any are saved is simply down to God's grace and God's mercy.
And so verses 22 to 29 Paul says look this whole idea of election rather than causing people to point an accusing finger at God and take up argument with him as being cruel or unfair,
Paul says we should be prompted to praise him for his grace and mercy.
Why? Because we should know that there will be none who faces judgment that do not deserve to face his judgment.
And contrary to that that there will be none in heaven who deserve to be there.
Where's the accusatory thing that comes out of that? It's God's glory both ways.
So verse 22 and 23 God's choosing is not arbitrary or whimsical.
When he chooses to punish a sinner, a sinner guilty before him for his rebellion, God gets glory.
Because God's justice and hatred of sin is sin. God's control of his world is evidence.
And on the other hand when he chooses a person for salvation or grace alone he gets glory for himself by showing he is rich in mercy.
There's no unfairness, there's no injustice done to one guilty sinner when another is pardoned.
Now there are things in there we can't fully understand but they're not issues of injustice and unfairness.
Friends I'm hoping that you'll see that case study not only speaks positively of election but actually deals with some objections that we often have in our mind.
So I plead with you again as I draw to conclusion now to approach this teaching with great humility.
That's how we should come to it. Not standing over God's word because we've something we've heard in the past from some other person.
We need to come to God's word carefully and prayerfully and ask is this teaching true and if it is as I believe it is.
We need to mould our mind to the word not the other way around.
So I plead with you. Hear God's voice on this row rather than what other people have said.
Don't reject it. I plead with you. Don't reject it because it seems contradictory or because you think it might be too hard to reconcile with what you believe God to be like.
And let me then conclude by going back to the start and remind you that election is the language of love mercy and compassion and everlasting commitment from the Lord to us as sinful people.
And it is. So let's respond in gratitude.
Election tells us that we have a God who will not take no for an answer.
And isn't that a good thing.
If he had put his salvation on the table and said well there you go it's there for you if you want to avail yourself of it.
We wouldn't have done it.
But God pushes through that and takes action to make us alive to set his love on us to save us and to bring us home.
Surely we should be thankful for that truth that speaks of God's determination.
Elections here is about the most amazing action on our behalf to the most unlikely and most undeserving of people.
And lest we fall into the silly idea that I grew up with in reform circles that the elect of God is a very small elite group and it was made into an elitism.
It was really awful. Let me just finish with Revelation chapter 7 verse 9.
John's looking into heaven he sees in heaven the results of God's salvation. After this he says I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count.
From every nation, tribe, people and language standing before the throne and in front of the land they were wearing white robes they were saved and were holding palm branches in their hands.
And they cried out in a loud voice, salvation belongs to the Lord.
My friends the doctrine of the election of God is no restricting negative doctrine. It is larger than we can ever conceive because God has set his love on a multitude that no man can number.
He saved them when he didn't deserve to be saved and he would bring them home to heaven to be with them forever when they don't deserve those privileges.
Let's pray.
Lord help us to hear your word and not to stumble over our own understandings or the influence of others in our lives.
Help us to come back to your word and carefully consider it.
Lord there's issues and objections that we will wrestle with in this thing but help us Lord to see the simplicity of the truth of election at its heart and not be bugged down in some of the wider philosophical arguments.
Help us to that and we pray in Jesus' name. Amen.