Paul on Politics

Okay, the title is meant to be amusing. I'm actually talking about Paul on Election.

One of my favorite passages on the doctrine of Election is Romans 9. It is impossible for me to read it and come away with anything but an abundantly clear presentation of the doctrine. Now, I know ... lots of people take it and turn it and say, "No! It's about corporate election" or some such (a distinction without a meaning as far as I can tell, because if God ordains that there will be a body of believers, does He not also ordain that there will be individuals that make up that body?). The simple fact, to me, is that you cannot read this passage and miss the very clear doctrine of Election in it. If you are going to miss it, you're going to have to work at it.

Paul begins this chapter by bemoaning the loss of Israel. "I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3). He immediately comforts himself because 1) he knows God ("it is not as though the word of God has failed" - v 6) and 2) he understands the secret: "it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring" (v 8). The question then becomes, "If true 'Israel' consists of 'the children of the promise', how do I become one of those children?"

Paul first spends some time proof texting. Ishmael was firstborn, but God chose Isaac. Esau was firstborn, but God chose Jacob. And he points out a fundamental fact: God chose whom He chose before they "had done nothing either good or bad -- in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls" (v 11). God didn't choose one over the other based on one or the other. God chose one over the other based on His purposes. So, the underlying rule of the doctrine of Election -- "the children of promise" -- is "God's purposes".

Paul faces the inevitable objection, the one anyone who promotes Election as fact will face: "That's not fair!!" (v 14). Paul's answer to this objection is this: "It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (v 16). If that isn't a red flag to the majority of believers I know, I don't know what else to say. The majority of believers think that God's choice does depend on human will: "God chooses those whom He knows will choose Him." "Good" Christians don't think it's based on human effort, but there are still a sizable number of believers that do. But Paul denies both. It is not based on our choice of Him or our efforts for Him; it is based (remember?) on "God's purposes".

What Paul says to seal this concept should be truly disturbing to those who reject Election. Paul uses examples of individuals throughout. There are Isaac and Jacob. There is Moses. And ... there is Pharaoh, an example of one not elected for salvation, but still part of "God's purposes". "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth'" (v 17). Pharaoh was predestined to stand against God so God could show His power. Paul summarizes, "So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (v 18). I hate to tell you this, folks, but that's "double predestination".

Paul faces the next logical objection. You should guess what it is. "If God chooses who will and who won't be saved, on what basis can He hold anyone accountable??!!" "If it's all His will, what does it matter what we do??!!" Oh, you'll hear it in other terms. "What about free will??!!" Or, "God doesn't want robots!!" But it's the same objection. "You're saying that God does all this. If it's true ... then God is wrong!"

Paul doesn't pull any punches with this objection. He doesn't apply reason so much as a slap in the face. "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'" (v 20). He says, in essence, "Back off! Are you sure you want to argue with God??!!" Paul makes two claims here. First, he asks "Has the Potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" Now, keep the metaphor straight here. Who is the Potter and who is the "vessel"? Clearly God is the Potter and we are the vessels. And Paul claims that God makes some vessels for "dishonorable use". Again ... "double predestination". The other claim here is equally astounding.

What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory (Rom 9:22-23).

This claim is as easy to miss as it is to realize. Paul says, "You're objecting that God would choose to save some and not all? I'm asking, 'Why would He save one?'" You see, we see ourselves as valuable, worthy, deserving, but Paul portrays us as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" -- not so nice. Paul declares here that one of "God's purposes" is "to show His wrath and to make known His power". We've set that up nicely by being sinners. Another of "God's purposes", however, is "to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy". In other words, the only reason He saves any of us is to make known the riches of His glory, not because of our choices, our works, or our intrinsic value to Him. It's all about God's purposes and God's purposes are all about His glory.

Look, I know ... the doctrine of Election isn't very popular in most circles. It seems that God chooses some and not others, has decided to save some and not others, and even does so apart from foreseen choices in the elect. How does one become one of the "children of promise"? God chooses. God makes them that way. That's what all this seems to say. As for me, I would prefer to accept an unpopular perspective when it is clearly stated and realign my views with God's views than to hold to popular ideas that require me to drag down God's sovereignty and work hard at twisting the clear language of Scripture. In the words of John the Baptist, "I must decrease and He must increase."