Sermon Tone Analysis

Introduction:

I. Paul’s Passion (vs 1-5)

II.

Paul’s Pronouncement (vs.

6-8)

III.

God’s Prerogative (vs.

9-23)

Again, Paul explains that even though Abraham had two sons, it was the son of Sarah that was the son pf promise not Hagar.

It is important to remember that eve though God showed some measure of Grace to Hagar, the promise was through Issac and not Ismael.

And then he explains that not only was the promise through the son of Sarah but also the promise was going to come through Isaac.

Now, again, we are dealing with a man to whom was given a promise through his offspring.

But just like Abraham, God is particular about through whom the promise will be made.

Not only siblings, but Paul tells us that

Paul wants to dispel any confusion arising from the that Abraham’s children, Ishmael and Isaac, were half-brothers.

Some one might have said, “the reason why it was given to one and the other was because there were two different mothers”.

But that is not the case with Jacob and Esau, because they had the same father and mother.

Not only did they have the same parents, but they were twins, born virtually at the same time.

Dramatically, the firstborn is passed over and the second-born receives the promise of God.

But notice what Paul says that completely destroys the synergist view of foreknowledge.

The choice had nothing to do with the actual good or potential good, the actual evil or potential evil, of Jacob and Esau.

It had to do with the purpose of God.

It is of his sovereign good pleasure.

Some have tried to get around this position by saying that Jacob and Esau were representatives of nations.

On this interpretation Paul is not talking about the election of individuals but of nations.

Even if that were the case, all the questions that surround the problem of predestination of individuals would still apply to the predestination of nations, only on a higher scale.

But the apostle is clearly writing of the selection of individuals.

There may be national repercussions as a result of it, but the election of which he speaks whereby one man is elect, while another is passed over, has nothing whatsoever to do with the virtue, foreseen or otherwise, of these two individuals.

Romans 9:13

Now, I will address this because I believe that it is important that you understand what the apostle is saying.

We need to speak on the word hate.

The objection that I normally hear is that, “I cannot imagine God hating”.

And as long as you try to make God like one of us, you will continue to have a problem with the fact of God hating.

Remember one important thing that we have said many times from this pulpit; God is not good and righteous because he follows a list of what are said to be righteous things, He is that list.

If God does it, that makes it righteous; if for no other reason than the fact that God did it.

You see, for us to hate is because we have been offended and not the holiness of God.

Our hatred is based on human emotions.

When the Scripture speaks of God’s hating, it means that he did not bestow favour upon Esau.

God did not give to him grace and the benefits of salvific love.

It doesn’t mean that God hates in the sense that human beings hate.

The Greek word for “hate” is “μισέω” and means according to every Lexicon of there; “to detest, to reject”.

But let me say this on this subject.

If you get stuck and have a problem with “Esau I hated”, then I will submit to you that you really do not understand the depth o human sinfulness and depravity.

It is not “Esau I hated” that should amaze us.

What should amaze us is “Jacob I loved”.

Of course, this raises the question: Is there arbitrariness in God?

Is he capricious?

Do his choices border on the irrational with no legitimate reason whatsoever?

Absolutely not!

God never does anything without a reason.

It is beyond the character of God to act in a whimsical, capricious manner.

God’s decisions are always taken in accordance with his character.

Now, the spectre of arbitrariness is here because the Scripture makes it very clear that there is no reason in the elect why God has chosen them.

But the fact that there is no reason in them, does not mean that there is no reason at all.

God has a reason for doing what He does.

But the point is that that the reason does not lie in us.

This always seems to raise the question, “Is God unjust?”

Some people think that this is a necessary inference from the doctrine of sovereign predestination.

God is willy-nilly, saves some and damns others and in violating the canons of justice, is in fact, unrighteous.

Some think that by rejecting the doctrine of predestination, somehow they are holding to a higher view of God.

Let’s say for the sake of illustration that you have two groups of sinners; group A and group B.

In His sovereignty, God chooses to give grace and elect group A.

He chooses to leave group B to themselves.

Group A gets grace, group B get justice.

Which group is treated with injustice?

Neither!

The non-elect can never say that they are treated unfairly or with injustice.

They getting exactly the justice that they deserved and, really, want.

You say, “Do you mean that people want to go to Hell?”

People loved the sin that leads them there, so in that case, yes!

But God treats no one with injustice.

The Arminian believes that the ultimate basis for our salvation is whether or not we choose to receive Jesus Christ.

Whoever chooses Christ will be saved, and whoever refuses Christ will be damned.

Those who choose Christ will be elect, and those who do not choose Christ will lose any possibility of election.

In the Arminian view of theology, election is based upon human decision.

This is a serious distortion of what the apostle Paul is teaching here.

Jesus made it clear that no one can come to him unless it is given to him by the Father (John 6:65).

Our natural state of sinfulness is one of utter moral dereliction.

We do not have the moral power to come to Jesus if left to ourselves.

The gift of grace, with which predestination is concerned, means that God gives the ability to come to Jesus Christ to some people.

He does not give that ability to everyone.

He gave it to Jacob; he withheld it from Esau.

It is not that God brings some people into the kingdom who don’t want to be there, kicking and screaming against their will.

The point of regeneration is that God changes the heart.

God quickens to spiritual life and plants a desire within for Christ.

But does it seem right, is there something basically unfair about that?

Does God have the obligation to give this opportunity to all men?

The reply must be another question: Why would God ever be under any obligation to give us anything after we have fallen, having committed cosmic treason, resulting in the desires of our hearts being only wicked continuously?

It is absolutely essential that we understand this: God Almighty owes us nothing.

We have no claim upon grace.

If we had, then we would not be talking about grace but about justice.

Grace, by definition, is something that God is never obliged to give, but something that he gives freely and voluntarily.

No one deserves to be saved, for all are under the condemnation of God.

If God delivers justice to everybody, all will perish.

But suppose that God, in his desire to be merciful, decides to be merciful to some, but not to others.

For example, if there are ten people who are guilty, and God sovereignly decides to pardon one of them and sentence the other nine, who has received an injustice?

The nine who are sentenced receive what they deserved—the just punishment for their sins.

The nine received justice, the one received mercy.

But none received injustice.

It is so vital that e understand this, because it makes the next verse much more understandable.

This is the basic essence of the doctrine of predestination, showing it to be a doctrine of grace.

Some people think that predestination inclines Christians to pride, but how could this be?