Human Respnsibility
Salvation is of the Lord • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 12 viewsNotes
Transcript
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Introduction:
Introduction:
In discussing the seeming tension between Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, there are a couple of Theological systems that seem to add to the “tension”.
The first one is a system that is call “Hyper-Calvinism”.
“Hyper-Calvinism” has, what we would call a heightened view of the sovereignty of God.
That is to say, that a “Hyper-Calvinist” would say that because God is Sovereign; therefore, man is not responsible.
“Hyper-Calvinist” would begin with sort of an “omnicausalism” that is to say that God is total cause of all things.
Now, understand that we believe that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but also agree with the Baptist Confession when it says:
God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree. ( ; ; ; , ; ; ; , ; ; ; )
But some late medieval theologians would go to far and even argue that God’s will is so absolute that He could even condemn the elect if HE chose to.
For Calvinism Election and Human Responsibility
Calvin called this “a diabolical blasphemy,” an example of the kind of speculation that avoids the revealed God and forges its own path to the hidden God. This emphasis on the absolute freedom of God, Calvin warned, would make us little more than balls that God juggles in the air.18
The Second class of “theology” that come along to “help” with this tension is called “Molenism”.
I mention this next, not because it was the second school of theology that has come along; because it was not, I mention it next because Molenism would incorporate an idea of what is called “middle-knowledge”.
That God was given all the possible outcomes that could every possibly come to pass and He chose from all of the possible contingencies.
The third school of Theology would be called “Pelagianism”.
Augustine, a fourth century theologian said that because of the fall man had lost all ability to obey God.
Because of original sin, human beings cannot obey what God requires.
Pillars of Grace (AD 100–1564) Pelagius: Humanistic Moralist
Pelagius, relying on human reason rather than divine revelation, concluded that accountability necessitates ability. Despite the teaching of Scripture, he insisted on the natural ability of fallen man to keep God’s law.
Pillars of Grace (AD 100–1564) Pelagius’s System of Doctrine
Pelagius taught that the human soul does not come into the world soiled by original sin transmitted from Adam.57 He rejected the idea that a person’s will has any bias in favor of wrongdoing as a result of the fall.58 He stated: “All good and evil, by which we are praiseworthy or blame-worthy, does not originate with us, but is acted by us. We are born capable of either: we are not born full [of character]; we are procreated without holiness and also without sin; before the action of his own individual will, there is nothing in man but what God has created.”59
So all throughout Church history there has been this combat between Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility.
From the Hyper-Calvinist who says that God is the absolute cause of all things; therefore, man is unable to response and so not responsible.
To the Pelagians (and Arminians) who say that that man is responsible; therefore, able to respond.
But the Scripture teaches both; that God is Absolutely Sovereign and that Man is Absolutely Responsible.
And the Scripture teaches this with out any contradiction.
This portion of is spent to talk about the responsibility of man.
Paul has spend 29 verses speaking about the Sovereignty of God, nor He spends the next couple of chapters speaking about man’s responsibility.
Hippo, A. of. (2011). Guardian of Grace. In Pillars of Grace (AD 100–1564) (Vol. 2, p. 224). Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing.
18 Calvin, Institutes 1.17.2, see esp. footnote 7: “Cf. Calvin, De aeterna Dei praedestinatione, where he assails the ‘Sorbonnist dogma that ascribes to God absolute power’ dissociated from justice.… Similarly, in Sermons on Job lxxxviii, on : ‘What the Sorbonne doctors say, that God has an absolute power, is a diabolical blasphemy which has been invented in hell’ (CR XXXIV. 339f.).” Although open theism appears at times to separate God’s love from his justice, Calvin will not allow that either God’s love or sovereignty is unhinged from his justice.
Horton, M. (2011). For Calvinism (p. 67). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
I. The Calling as Initiated by God the Father (vs. 24)
I. The Calling as Initiated by God the Father (vs. 24)
II. The Compassion as Illustration by Hosea the Prophet (vs. 25-26)
II. The Compassion as Illustration by Hosea the Prophet (vs. 25-26)
III. The Comparison as Proclaim by Isaiah the Prophet (vs. 27-29)
III. The Comparison as Proclaim by Isaiah the Prophet (vs. 27-29)
IV. The Condition as Explained by the Apostle Paul (vs. 30-33)
IV. The Condition as Explained by the Apostle Paul (vs. 30-33)
The Apostle begins this section with an inference to sort of wrap up what he has been saying all this time.
Now, it is important to keep in mind that this is not going to be the last time that the Apostle speaks about the fact that Israel’s rejection was their fault, he covers it also in the next two chapters that we will be studying.
But he is wrapping up the reasons why most of Israel will not believe.
As we have seen the divine reason why most of Israel will not believe is because “God will show mercy to whoever He chooses to show mercy and He will harden whom He chooses to harden”.
That is the reason for anyones faith from the Divine side.
However, there is always a Human side to the equation and the human side says that most of Israel will not believe because of their own rejection.
You say, “I cannot marry those two things together”.
That is alright, we are going to see from this text that both of those things are; in fact, true.
We have seen the Divine side; now look at the human side.
From the stand point of Divinity, they do not believe because they were not chosen to believe.
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
From the stand point of humanity, they did not believe because they refused to believe.
Paul brings the whole question to full circle as he explains this.
A. The Unredeemable Redeemed (vs. 30)
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Paul brings in the Gentiles; and remember, to the Jews the Gentiles were unredeemable dogs.
They had absolutely no moral, or redeeming quality.
Gentiles are referred to “dogs” in Jewish literature.
For example, in the Apocryphal book of Enoch, which is a collection of early Jewish History says:
Gentiles are referred to as “foreigners”.
Gentiles are referred to as “outside the law”
Enoch 89:49
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
Gentiles are referred to as “uncircumcised”.
Romans
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.
So, to a Jew, there is nothing that is good about a Gentile.
But, just as a side note and something for you to put in the back on your mind, their are in the Scripture some very prominent Gentiles.
The Lexham Bible Dictionary Biblical Relevance
Ruth, a Moabite, was devoted to Naomi (Ruth 1:4).
• Job was from the land of Uz (Job 1:1).
• Cyrus, a non-Jewish king, was called the messiah (Isa 44:28–45).
• The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew included at least three Gentile women: Tamar (Matt 1:3), Rahab (Matt 1:5), and Ruth (Matt 1:5); it could possibly include a fourth: Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba—if Uriah was actually a Hittite.
• The magi, from the east, visited Jesus at His birth (Matt 2:1–12).
• Cornelius was a Roman centurion and the first recorded Gentile convert (Acts 10:1–43).
• Titus, the companion of Paul, was described as Greek (Gal 2:5).
The stereotypical typical attitude of the Jews towards the Gentiles was that they were an unrighteous people.
And that was not without merit; the Lord said to Israel....
“When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations.
And based on that unrighteous behavior, Gentiles were seen as unredeemable.
In the Book of Jubilees, another account of old Jewish history, notice what it says in Jubilee 15:26
And every one that is born, the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, belongs not to the children of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham, but to the children of destruction; nor is there, moreover, any sign on him that he is the Lord’s, but (he is destined) to be destroyed and slain from the earth, and to be rooted out of the earth, for he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God.
So, what Paul is doing here is explaining to this probable objector the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles.
The difference that Paul argues here for the Gentiles faith and the lack of the Jewish faith is what was the means that they received faith.
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Paul, speaking of the Gentiles, says that they did not “following after righteousness”.
Paul uses the Greek word that is translated “follow”, “διώκω” and literally means “to pursue, to run after swiftly”.
This same Greek word is used in and it is translated “to seek”.
It is used in and it is translated “to follow”.
It is used in and it is translated as “to strive”.
And the idea of the word is really “to chase after, to swiftly in order to catch someone or something”.
The idea that Paul is giving here is that the Gentiles did not chase after righteousness, they did not not attempt to pursue it.
And because they did not attempt to pursue it, they were able to obtain it.
You say, “but what, does’t the Bible tell us to “pursue righteousness”?
Yes, it does.
Two times, both written by the Apostle Paul.
But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.
So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.
So, if we are commanded to pursue righteousness, then why are the Gentiles because they did not not pursue it?
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;
Because Paul, in Romans, is not talking about a sanctifying righteousness as he is in Timothy, but he is talking a righteousness that is ἐκ πίστις, out of faith.
He is talking about a righteousness that is because of faith or salvation.
Paul is not saying here that the Gentile requirement for salvation is different than the Jews, He is that the human requirement for salvation is the same that it has always been and that is faith.
Paul point is that the Gentiles received righteousness because they received it by faith.
Salvation has always, for everyone, been by faith.
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—
the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
So the the unredeemable became redeemable by the Sovereign Work of God and by their act of Faith; not independent from each other but working together.
B. The Redeemable Unredeemed (vs. 31-32)
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
-22
Israel “followed” same Greek word as verse 30, “διώκω”, “chased after swiftly in order to catch” righteousness, but they did not get it.
Paul, answers very simply, they did not get it because they did not seek it “out of faith”.
But they sought by observance of the law.
The Jews did not receive the grace of God; 1) God Sovereignly mercies and hardens by His choosing; 2) because they did not exercise faith, but a works righteousness.
And while God did His sovereign work, Paul’s point is that they are responsible for their lack of true faith but trying to obtain righteousness by the works of the law.
In the covenantal framework the law is never intended to be a way of earning good standing before God. It is a response to God’s grace, not a prerequisite to it.
The proper motivation for obedience to the law is to show loyal love for God (; ), not to earn the love of God.
Yet much of this loyalty was divorced from the law’s OT covenantal imagery.
By a perverse twist the law became viewed as a means of gaining right standing with God ().
Circumcision came to be the central symbol of commitment to the law as a means of justification before God ().
Jesus points out, however, that this affirmation of the law is hypocritical and legalistic (, ).
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat,
so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
Because they instructed people that a right standing before God came as a result of keeping the law.
But Paul’s point is that is the exact reason why Israel did not receive righteousness; not because that the Word of God has failed, but because Israel sought a right standing before God by the works of the law.
Judgment awaits those who attempt to earn covenant blessings through the law because perfect conformity is impossible (; ). Without forgiveness and restoration through faith in Christ, the law can only bring further curses ().
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
We do not get righteousness by the works of the law, but by faith.
And that is the exact reason why most of Israel rejects to this day, they seek a right standing before God by observance of the Law and not by faith.
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Paul quoting .
Far from being inconsistent with God’s Word, Israel’s unbelief verified that Word.
Just as Isaiah declared, she tripped over the sone of stumbling, refusing to receive her Savior and Lord, because HE did not fit their understanding of the Messiah and because, as a rock of offense, He declared their works to be worthless.
But the good news of the gospel is that, unlike those who reject Him, he who believes in Him - the ones who has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the divine stumbling stone and rock of offense - will not be disappointed.
Romans: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary Israel’s Unbelief Is Consistent with God’s Prerequisite of Faith
The issue on the human side is faith, which alone can bring the salvation that God’s grace provides. Man is justified by grace through faith. But Israel’s unbelief, her lack of faith, did not surprise the Lord or nullify His plan. God’s prerequisite of faith has always been the same, and His choosing a remnant in Israel for salvation was in perfect harmony with His omniscient awareness that only a few would believe in His Son and be saved. That is the way God knew it would be and planned it to be, and that, of course, is the way it turned out to be.