How is God’s Election of Some and Not Others Fair?

I recently preached a sermon on the doctrine of predestination. In the last half of my sermon, I responded to some of the more common objections/questions raised when discussing this topic. Below is the excerpt of my response to the question of God's fairness in choosing some and not others. I hope it is helpful.

As Christians, we are commanded to abstain from partiality, favoritism, or be a respecter of persons. Scripture says God isn’t partial to anyone, “for they are all works of his hands” (Job 34:19). But when it comes to election and predestination, many see an injustice on God’s part. Why does he choose some and not others? The problem with that question is that we are inclined to make decisions based on how another makes us feel. We are moved and influenced by others and within our own hearts to make decisions pertaining to others. Creaturely action doesn’t move God to choose anyone; rather, his good pleasure is the ground for his decision to elect some and reject others. God’s pleasure isn’t tainted like our human pleasure; rather, it flows from the pure goodness, righteous, and holy will of God. Our good pleasure is grounded in selfish motives. Scripture says, “Man doesn’t see as the Lord sees; man sees what is visible, but the Lord sees the heart” (1 Sam 16:7). It is not that God can see one’s heart is good, and we cannot (though we can’t); rather, we can only look on the outside in our judgements, unable to see that every heart is wicked, as God does. So, if we were to choose, our choosing would be in arrogance, whereas God’s choosing is a work of pure mercy. “In choosing the unworthy, God’s only concern is his pure goodness. He doesn’t consider whether one is better than the other ; . . it is right for God to choose those he wills, for his will is the supreme rule of all equity and righteousness.”[1] Psalm 83:18 says, “May they know that you alone—whose name is the Lord— are the Most High over the whole earth.” But let me show you why.

In Romans 9:18, Paul says, “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and he hardens whom he wants to harden.” If one needs mercy, what does that imply about that person’s moral condition? And if God is to harden someone, what does that imply about that person’s moral condition? Both are depraved and ungodly. If we are all unworthy, then how is God unjust or unfair in choosing one over the other? Do you see the problem with this question? We would be unjust and unfair if election and predestination were our doing. And that is why Scripture says eternal salvation is not of works but of him who calls. We would choose based on one’s works, but Scripture says, “no one is righteous; no one seeks after God; no does good” (Romans 3:10–12).

All throughout the Bible we see God acts for the sake of his name, his glory, his righteousness. I could give you 30+ passages. But the essence of God’s glory, his righteous name, and what it means to be God is found in Exodus 33:18–19, which we see revealed further in Romans 9:15–16. In Exodus 33:18–19, Moses asks God to let him see his glory. God responds, saying, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim the name ‘the LORD’ before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “The divine words, ‘I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion,’ are a manifestation of God’s glory (33:18), a ‘passing by’ of his goodness and proclamation of his name.”[2] What does this mean? Let’s go to Romans 9:15–16.

What objection is Paul addressing here? The same one I am. How is God’s selection just? How is it fair? What OT passage does Paul refer to? Exodus 33:19. Why is he referring to this passage? In Paul’s use of Exodus 33:18–19 here, Paul is saying if God doesn’t act according to the glory of his name,—“the essential feature of God’s glorious character in his propensity to show mercy and his absolute freedom in bestowing it on whomever he wills apart from any constraints originating outside of his will,”[3]—God’s righteousness would be called into question. Why? Because something other than the good will of God would determine/influence God’s will in election, thus making God’s decision unrighteous. To bestow grace and mercy on whomever he wills is to act in full allegiance to the glory of his name. Paul’s purpose in 9:15 is to declare God’s character, namely his sovereign freedom in displaying mercy. It is what God does to be who God is. “Man’s willing and running do not determine the bestowal of God’s mercy (9:16); on the contrary, God’s mercy determines man’s willing and working,”[4] as Paul writes, in Philippians 2:13, “For it is God who is working in you both to will and work according to his good purpose.”

So . . . are you concerned that God is unjust? Will anyone in here dare to subject God to his or her supervision? If we for a moment, question God’s decisions and decrees, then we reveal the root of our fault: arrogance. There is no will higher than the will of God. There is nothing greater than the will of God. If you think differently than what God has determined to come to pass, according to his infinite wisdom, you deceive yourself because what you are thinking could never actually be because it is God’s will that is done, not ours. I want this to really sink in. And this is where Romans 9:20 must be our humble confession: “Who am I, oh man, to talk back to God.” So, why does God elect some and not others. Paul offers the fullest answer that he can give us, in Romans 9:22–23: He desires to display his wrath and power on objects of wrath prepared for destruction, and he desires to display the riches of his glory on objects of mercy prepared beforehand for glory. “The ultimate aim of God is to show mercy. But to do so, he must place it against a backdrop of wrath.”[5] And God’s act of predestination is the means he uses to achieve that purpose.

Within this question, I think it is proper to address the misconception that many have of election and predestination, whereby they say God elects individuals who he foresees will be faithful. Now, I hope our examination of Ephesians 1:4 cleared up that misconception [covered previously in the sermon]. As stated, God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. But, hypothetically speaking, to entertain that misconception, we need to ask ourselves, “What would God actually see if he elects individuals based on what he foresees?” Within this manner of God’s election, this assumes we are left to our own natures, as God looks down the corridor of time. What would he see? I already mentioned Romans 3:10–12, which says no one seeks after God, no one does good. Again, I ask, what would God see? As Calvin says, “utter rottenness and loathing.” According to Romans 8:7, “Paul says every single power of our nature is at enmity with God.”[6] Therefore, we should see the biblical truth in Ephesians 1:4: God chose us too make us holy, not because God saw us as holy. All praise to our Lord!

~ Romans 11:36

______________________

[1] John Calvin, The Doctrine of Election, trans. Robert White (Banner of Truth Trust, 2022), 118–19.
[2] Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, (Baker Books, 2007), 121.
[3] Ibid., 156.
[4] Ibid., 154.
[5] Ibid., 220.
[6] Calvin, Election, 15.

Comments

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’. Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te

Clement of Alexandria: Nuances of the Classical God

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215) was the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria (c. 190), and the teacher of Origen. Concerned that Christianity is not seen as an unsophisticated religion, Clement sought to reconcile his faith with the best of Greek philosophy, specifically in the usefulness of Middle Platonism.[1] He believed that the kernels of truth found in Plato and Greek Philosophy were preparatory for the Gentiles in leading them to Christ, just as the Law was a guide or guardian for the Hebrews. Clement’s esoteric exegesis and speculative theology emphasized a higher knowledge, but this knowledge was obtained only through the Logos.

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr. De fide ), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting objections from the Arians. This post will ex

Origen: How is the Son the Invisible Image of the Invisible God?

Early Church Father Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–c. 254), considered the “greatest theological luminary of his age,” [1] his prolific writings amassed to some six thousand works. While his exegetical contribution to the formulation of Christian doctrine greatly shaped the theology of the fourth century, he is also a controversial fellow. Nevertheless, it is important that when we read such figures writing theology in the nascent stages of the Christian Faith, we must do our best to keep them in their context—to prevent hasty anathematizing. We have the privilege of 1900 years of theological development to stand on, passed on to us through toil, tears, and even death. Anyway... I have been studying Origen’s writings, particularly his First Principles ( De Principiis) , and came across a wonderful insight that illuminated my thinking on Christ as the image of God. I am working on a doctrine of God course. Below is an excerpt from my lecture material. So, we are going to drop right i

“A New Heaven and New Earth” ~ A (Partial) Preterist Reading of Isaiah 65:17–25

When God says he will create a new heaven and a new earth, what will this new heaven and earth be like? Is it describing an obliteration of the material world, with a new material heaven and earth to follow? Early Church Father Jerome did not see a destruction of the elements; instead, he saw newness , a change into something better. Commenting on this passage, he writes, “The Apostle Paul said, ‘for the form of this world is perishing’ [1Co 7:31]. Notice that he said ‘form,’ not ‘substance.’”[1] Thomas Aquinas sees the new heavens and earth to be “the restoration of goods, for behold I create a new heavens , with new help from heaven, and a new earth , new benefits from the earth; this refers to the day of judgment, when the world will be renewed to the glory of the saints: the former things have passed away (Re 21:4).”[2] Closer to the immediate historical context, another understanding sees this as “a hyperbolic expression of the future restoration of the people of Judah after the

Read. Reflect. Write.

Search This Blog