Ulysses S. Grant who was the head of the
Union forces in the war between the states and later became the President of the
United States received the nickname during his military career based upon his
initials U. S. Grant of "Unconditional Surrender Grant" because when he defeated
the enemy he would not allow for a negotiated peace that meant acquiescing to
certain conditions. And so we have this concept of that which is unconditional and
so in the acrostic TULIP the U stands for unconditional election. It's another one
of those terms that I think can be a little bit misleading, and I prefer simply
to use the term sovereign election, but that totally destroys our TULIP and not
only is in now RULIP but it becomes RSELUP and doesn't quite work. What are we
talking about when we use the term unconditional election? It doesn't mean
that God will save people no matter whether they come to faith or not come to
faith. There are conditions that God decrees for salvation not the least of
which is putting one's personal trust in Christ. But that is a condition for
justification and the doctrine of election is something else. It's related to the
doctrine of justification but when we're talking about unconditional election we're
talking in a very narrow confine here of the doctrine of election itself. The
question at this point becomes then on what basis does God elect to choose or
elect to save certain people? Is it on the basis of some foreseen reaction, response,
or activity of the elect? That is, many people who have a doctrine of election or
predestination look at it this way: That from all eternity God looks down through
the corridors of time and He knows in advance who will say yes to the offer of
the Gospel and who will say no. And on the basis of this prior knowledge those whom
He knows will meet the condition for salvation, that is, of expressing faith or
belief in Christ knowing that there're those who will meet that condition on that
basis then He elects to save them. So conditional election means that God's
electing grace is distributed by God on the basis of some foreseen condition that
human beings exercise themselves. Whereas the Reformed view is called unconditional
election meaning by this that there is no foreseen action or condition met by us
that induces God to decide to save us, but that election rests upon God's sovereign
decision to save whomsoever He is pleased to save. Now we turn to Paul's letter to
the Romans to the 9th chapter where we find a discussion of this difficult
concept. Where in Romans 9 beginning in verse 10 we read this: "And not only this,
but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac, for the
children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of
God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls, it was said to her, 'The older shall serve
the younger. ' As it is written, 'Jacob I have loved, but Esau have I hated. '" Here
in chapter 9 the Apostle Paul is giving his exposition of the doctrine of
election. He had dealt with it significantly in the 8th chapter and now
he is illustrating his teaching of the doctrine of election by going back into
the past of the Jewish people and looking at the circumstances surrounding the birth
of twins--Jacob and Esau. And in the ancient world it was customary that the
first-born son would receive the inheritance or the Patriarchal blessing.
But in the case of these twins God reverses the process and gives the
blessing not to the elder but to the younger. And the point that the apostle
labors here is that this decision is not with a view to anything that they had done
or would do. The point is is the decision is not only made prior to their birth,
that would be manifestly obvious, but what Paul labors here is that it is not with a
view to their doing any good or evil, but Paul uses this illustration to show that
the purposes of God might stand. So that it does not rest on us, but it rests
solely on the gracious sovereign decision of God. Now in verse 14 we read these
words: "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not. "
Or other translations read, "God forbid. " And still others, "By no means. " Now I
find it fascinating that Paul raises this rhetorical question immediately after
setting forth his metaphor of the birth of Jacob and Esau and the preference of God
for one rather than the other without a view to their works. I remember when I was
a seminary student and deeply struggling over the doctrine of election as most
seminary students do, and there was just something that didn't fit with me. It
didn't sit right at all to think that God dispenses His saving grace to some and not
to others and that the reason for giving some salvation and not to others doesn't
rest in us, but solely in the determinate grace of God. That bothered me. Because my
initial response was this just doesn't seem to be fair. I thought how can this be
fair that God would choose to save some and not others. Now I understood that
nobody deserved salvation in the first place. And I know that if God would let
the whole human race perish, He would be perfectly just so to do. I also understood
by then that the only way we could ever be saved at all is somehow by the grace of
God. But I certainly didn't think it rested this heavily on the grace of God,
and I thought why would God give His grace to some people in a greater measure than
He would to others? It just didn't seem fair to me. And as I struggled with it and
read Edwards and the other Reformed theologians I still wasn't convinced, and
I had a little card I had in my desk in seminary and it said this: "You are
required to believe and to preach what the Bible says is true, not what you would
like it to say is the truth. " And that put some restraints on me because I read
this passage every conceivable way, and I knew there were people who said well,
Paul's not really talking about the election of individuals here; he's talking
about the benefits of salvation that were given to the Jews rather than the Arabs.
And he's talking about nations that are chosen not individuals. That didn't
persuade me for five minutes, because even if he were talking about nations, he
illustrates it by the individuals who are at the head of that nation, so no matter
how you slice it you're still back down here wrestling with one person receiving a
blessing from God and the other person not, and it's based ultimately on the good
pleasure of God Himself, and it still seemed not right. Now I've written lots of books and I've
taught lots of courses, and I know that when I set a thesis forth that if I've
done that often enough you have enough practice that you can almost anticipate,
or you can anticipate, not almost but altogether anticipate, the objections or
the questions that people will immediately raise to a certain thesis. And at this
point, at least, one of the few points I can identify with the Apostle Paul as a
teacher is here, because the apostle when he was setting forth this doctrine
anticipated a response or a question. He no sooner spells out the sovereign grace
that is given to Jacob over Esau that he stops and says, "What then? Is there
unrighteousness in God?" Now one of the things that persuaded me that the
Reformers had it right with respect into election was contemplating this very
question, because I thought like this: I thought if Paul is trying to teach a
semi-Pelagian or Arminian view of election by which in the final analysis a person's
election is based upon that person meeting some kind of condition so that in the
final analysis it's on you and what you have done and this person hasn't done it,
who would raise any objection about that's being unfair? Who would possibly raise an
objection about that being, involving an righteousness in God? That would seem
manifestly fair. And I am sure that people who teach Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism
and articulate their views on this matters, they have certain questions that
come to them all the time that they have to answer and they have to respond to just
like anybody else, but I wonder how often people protest against their teaching by
saying that's not fair? I doubt if they've ever heard that. Or wait a minute, this
means that God is unrighteous, but the apostle does anticipate that response. And
what is the teaching that engenders that response. It is the teaching that election
is unconditional. It's when you're teaching that election rests ultimately,
exclusively on the sovereign will of God and not of the performance or actions of
human beings that the protest arises. And so Paul anticipates the protest, "Is there
unrighteousness in God?" And he answers it with the most emphatic response he can
muster in the language, I prefer the translation, "God forbid. " Then he goes
on to amplify this, "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whomever I will have
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. '" So here the
apostle is reminding people of what Moses had to declare centuries before; namely,
that it is God's divine right to execute executive clemency when and where he so
desires it. He says from the beginning, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.
Not on those who meet my conditions, but upon those whom I am pleased to bestow the
benefit. Now I like to draw a picture on the blackboard of a group of stick figures
and representing people and these people represent the masses of the human race,
and I'll put six stick figures on the board, and I'll put a circle around three
of them and another circle around the other three. And I say let's let the one
circle represent the people who receive this unspeakable gift of divine grace in
election and the other circle represent those who do not. And ask the question if God chooses
sovereignly to bestow His grace on some sinners and withhold His grace from other
sinners is there any violation of justice in this? If we look at those who do not
receive this gift, do they receive something they do not deserve? Of course
not. If God allows these sinners to perish, is He treating them unjustly? Of
course not. One group receives grace; the other receives justice. No one receives
injustice. And God, like a governor in a state, can allow certain criminals who are
guilty to have the full measure of their penalty imposed against them, but the
governor also has the right to pardon, to give executive clemency as he declares. So
that that person who receives clemency receives mercy; the other ... and if the
governor commutes one person's sentence, does that mean he's obligated to do it for
everybody else? By what rule of justice? By what rule of righteousness is that so?
Not at all. Paul was saying there is no injustice in this because Esau didn't
deserve the blessing in the first place, and he doesn't get the blessing. God
hasn't been unfair to Esau. Well Jacob didn't deserve the blessing either, and he
does get the blessing. Jacob receives blessing; Esau receives the justice. And
then no where in there is an injustice perpetrated. But why is that? What is the
purpose for that? Well Paul then comes to verse 16, and this is a very important
verse in Romans 9. He begins it with this word, "So. " It's just kind of like the
word therefore. He's coming to a conclusion. And he says, "So, so then, it
is not of him who wills nor of him who runs but of God who shows mercy. Now the
Scripture says to the Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up that I
may display my power in you and that My name may be declared in all the earth. '
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills. And whom He wills He hardens. " Now you
would think when Paul speaks as emphatically and clearly as he does here
when he declares it is not of him who wills or of him who runs, you would think
that that would end all of the debates and all the discussions and all of the
theories and all of the doctrines that in the final analysis makes election
conditional on the one who wills. But Paul demolishes human will as the basis for
God's sovereign election. The only basis I can find according to the Scripture is
that, yes, salvation is based upon will. And yes, it is based upon free will. Now
I'm confusing everybody. But it is based upon the will and the free will of a
sovereign God who elects, Paul teaches elsewhere, according to the good pleasure
of His will. Now if you ask me why I came to faith and why I'm in the kingdom and my
friends aren't, I can only say to you I don't know, but this much I do know. It's
not something I did to deserve it; it's not some condition that I met in my flesh.
The only answer I can give is the grace of God. And you ask me why does He give that
grace to me and not to somebody else? And if I begin to give an answer that suggests
that it was something good in me that He perceived, I would no longer be talking
about grace. I would be talking about some good thing
that I did that was the basis for God to elect me. But I don't have anything like
that to offer. If the Bible teaches anything over and over and over again, it
is that salvation is of the Lord. And this, yes, is at the heart of Reformed
theology, not because we're interested in abstract question of sovereign
predestination and that we just enjoy the intellectual titillation that speculation
on this doctrine engenders, but rather the focal point in this theology, as it was in
the T of total depravity going back to Augustine, is on grace that the accent
here removes all merit from me, all dependence on my righteousness for my
salvation and puts the focus back where it belongs on the unspeakable mercy and grace
of God who has the sovereign, eternal right to have mercy upon whom He will have
mercy; so that it is not of him who wills, except of the divine will, not of him who
runs but of God. That's where the accent is in the Reformed doctrine of election.
