Sermon Tone Analysis

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.

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.

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.

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)

II.

The Compassion as Illustration by Hosea the Prophet (vs.

25-26)

III.

The Comparison as Proclaim by Isaiah the Prophet (vs.

27-29)

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.

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)

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

Gentiles are referred to as “uncircumcised”.

Romans

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.

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....

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.

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.