Church: Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia | Text: Romans 9 | Date: December 13, 2020 | Speaker: Fred Zaspel

Open your Bibles with me, if you will, please, to Romans chapter 9. We’re continuing our series on the doctrine of salvation. We’ve been dealing with that first major section, Salvation Planned. Next, as I’ve mentioned, we’ll deal with the broader section of Salvation Accomplished and then finally Salvation Applied. Actually, I’ve decided, though, after this, before we get into that next major section, Salvation Accomplished, I thought I would take a bit of an aside after this on salvation planned with the emphasis on the doctrine of election, the sovereignty of God, and salvation. I thought I would take an aside next and maybe for a couple of weeks we’ll look at the question of the free offer of the gospel. If you hear this about election and divine sovereignty and salvation and conclude from this that you don’t need to witness the gospel or that perhaps because God chose some and not all to be saved, you should not offer the gospel freely to all, then you’ve concluded wrongly. Many have concluded that and I want to balance it out with that kind of a study next.

But today now, the sovereignty of God in salvation. I want to take the time to read through Romans chapter nine.

I’m speaking the truth in Christ. I’m not lying. My conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For 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. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs. From their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring. But through Isaac shall your offspring be named. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise who are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said, about this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son. And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works, but because of his call, she was told, the older will serve the younger, as it is written. Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means. For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then, it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. 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. So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? What will what is molded say to its molder? Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath, and 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—even us, whom he has called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles, as indeed he says in Hosea, those who were not my people, I will call my people, and her who was not beloved, I will call beloved. And in the very place where it was said to them, you are not my people, there they will be called sons of the living God.

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay. And as Isaiah predicted, if the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.

What shall we say then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith. But that Israel, who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness, did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, behold, I’m laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.

Let’s bow together in prayer. Our Father, this is a marvelous passage of Scripture, certainly the depths of which we could not explore in one message, in one study, but we pray that you would open our eyes to it and give us a right apprehension of it. May we, as a result of seeing this, be better worshipers. Help us to glory in the display of your wrath and help us to glory in the display of your mercy. We pray in Jesus’ name, amen.

All right, we are looking then one more time at this doctrine of election, salvation planned. This is a somewhat controversial doctrine these days. It’s not always been the case in the history of the church, but in our context it is, generally, in our evangelical world. But I like to say, and many have said this before, that the doctrine of election is a doctrine that every Christian already knows. The doctrine of election is a doctrine that every Christian already recognizes.

And I know that for two reasons. Number one, every Christian thanks God for his salvation. No one ever bows his head and says, “I’d like to thank myself for saving me.” It’s our instinct. If you are a genuine Christian, it’s just our instinct to say that God has done something for me. And he’s done something for me that he did not do for someone else. One reason every Christian recognizes this is because we all thank God for our salvation.

The second reason I say that every Christian recognizes this is that every Christian prays that God would save others. No Christian ever bows his head and prays and says, “Lord, I know you’ve done all you can do. You’re off the hook. I just hope he’ll see through to believing you.” But in praying that God will save, we are praying that God will interrupt in mercy and do something for the person. And we acknowledge in that that salvation does not ultimately hinge on the human decision, but it hinges on God. We instinctively recognize that this saving business is God’s business and his business alone. And until and unless he moves in grace, lost sinners will all remain lost sinners. So on one level, it’s a doctrine every Christian already recognizes, even if in their speaking and in their preaching they deny it.

But Romans chapter 9 is the passage in the Bible that is given to expound this truth at great length. And we’re going to try to look through the entire chapter today in one sitting. Paul here has been expounding in Romans chapters 3 through 8 the doctrine of justification by faith and its attending blessings. I just mustn’t say anything more about that or that’ll be the whole sermon. But in Romans 3 to 8, he’s expounding on the doctrine of justification—that it comes by faith and by faith alone. Those who believe in Christ, who has done the work to save, they may be saved and declared righteous in God’s sight.

But what’s becoming painfully clear to the Apostle Paul at this point is that Israel has come to take a back seat in God’s saving program. The gospel has gone out, and initially it was largely a Jewish affair. It was Jews who believed. And that makes sense if you look at the Old Testament promises. They’re filled with prophecies of Israel prospering under Messiah and prospering under his care and in his kingdom. And so that might be expected to continue.

But what has happened, in fact, is that as this gospel progressed and advanced in that first generation, more and more it’s becoming a Gentile affair, and less and less are the Jews involved with it. And that creates something of a question, a problem, a theological problem for the Apostle Paul and for others. What happened to all of those promises in the Old Covenant that Israel would be saved? And these chapters, chapters 9 to 11, Paul takes up that question. And he answers it basically in two ways.

God’s Distinguishing Grace Or His Electing Purpose

First of all, here in chapter 9, he makes the point, and we’ll see in a minute, that God never promised that all of the physical descendants of Abraham would be saved. And this takes us to the doctrine of the remnant and so on. But then secondly, he argues, and this takes us through the end of chapter 11, that God will in time work, in fact, on behalf of Israel, and Israel will be saved. That’s the climax in chapter 11, verse 26. And that is for another time.

But this is an important question that’s important for us Gentiles as well. Paul has been expounding this promise of justification by faith in Christ. And that if we have faith in Christ, we believe in him, we will have all of the attending blessings. And those blessings take us into eternity. As we saw last time in Romans chapter 8 at the end there, God has the saving purpose that runs from eternity to eternity. And that’s the promise to all who believe in Jesus. But now, in fact, if God’s promise to Israel has failed, how certain can we be about our promises? Might our promises fail as well? And so Paul has to take up this argument about Israel, and that’s, I think, part of the driving force behind it.

Now, in Romans chapter 9, verses 6 and 7—well, verses one to three, he expresses his broken heart for Israel and how he grieves for them, how they have begun to lose out. And now he wants to expound the truth of the matter and answer that theological question. And in verses six through nine, he grounds his argument in the distinguishing grace and in God’s electing purpose.

Verse six: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” That is, God’s purpose today is being carried out by a sample within Israel, a select remnant that he has chosen. You’ll notice in verse 6, “it’s not as though the word of God has failed, not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” That is, there’s a narrowing within Israel. Within the descendants of Abraham, there’s a narrowing. Not all who are descended by him are Israel. There’s a narrowing focus. That’s his first broad theological proposition.

And then he gives his proof text number one, verse seven: “Not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” Here he quotes from Genesis chapter 21, verse 12. Not Ishmael, but Isaac; it is Isaac’s seed that will be Abraham’s offspring. It will be Sarah’s son. That’s what he says again in verse 9. If you just read the scriptures, read the book of Genesis, Paul says, and you’ll see that God’s distinguishing purpose is evident. And it’s been a determining factor ever since the beginning. So why not all of Abraham’s descendants? Why not Ishmael and Isaac? Answer: God said Isaac. That’s why. That’s Paul’s point here. God has said that through Sarah’s son Isaac, Abraham’s seed will be called. Now there’s no real difference themselves considered between Ishmael and Isaac. But there’s one distinguishing difference. And that is that God said Isaac. That’s it.

Now that argument, I think, is persuasive enough. It’s not all who are descended from Israel that belong to Israel. There’s a true Israel within Israel. And we have a proof text: not Ishmael, but Isaac. So there’s this narrowing with Israel. That’s a persuasive argument. And at one level, Paul could be done at that point. But someone might object at this point, say, “Well, Ishmael’s mother was an Egyptian.” Well, I’m not sure what difference that would make. Sarah was Mesopotamian, so what’s the difference? But somebody might say that. Everybody knows later Egyptians are the bad guys in the stories. That’s the problem.

And so Paul takes that up with another illustration from Genesis, and that’s in verses 10 to 13. “Not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived”—so now we’re not talking about Sarah, but Rebekah, Isaac’s wife—”not only so, but when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and 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, she was told ‘the older will serve the younger.'” As it is written, and here he adds more support from the book of Malachi, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

So the argument runs like this. It was Jacob who was chosen of Isaac’s family. It was Jacob who was chosen and not Esau. Why? What difference is there between Jacob and Esau? They’re in fact brothers. In fact, they’re twin brothers. And in fact, Esau was the older. You might think he should receive the blessing. Well, there’s one difference. God said Jacob. That’s the difference. Even before they were born, before ever either one of them had done good or bad, before they’d behaved or misbehaved, God said the older will serve the younger. And verse 11, God decreed this with this very purpose: to demonstrate his own purpose in election, to demonstrate his sovereign choice.

In other words, the distinction between Jacob and Esau is a distinction that God made and no one else. It’s independent of either Jacob or Esau themselves. God made the distinction. God did not choose Jacob because Jacob was better. God did not reject Esau because Esau was worse. In fact, he specifically denies here any human distinctions at all. And he affirms that this entire thing is grounded only in God’s own sovereign will. Before they were born, they had not yet done anything good or bad, not because of works, but because of him who calls. Specifically arguing as plainly as he can that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was completely free of any human influence at all. It is his choice. Not birth, not behavior, but before and apart from any consideration of anything about them, God said the older will serve the younger.

Now I want you to think about this before we move on with reference to the traditional Arminian argument of election that we’ve looked at before: that God looks ahead and he sees me believing and based on what he sees me doing, he chooses me. You see that? That is exactly the kind of thing Paul is rejecting here. Or remember the other way it’s often stated: God cast a vote for you, the devil cast a vote for you, and you cast the deciding vote. It’s exactly that kind of thinking that Paul is writing here to contradict. The only factor involved in Jacob and Esau is God. God chose Jacob and not Esau. He rejected him. And that decision, he says, is made apart from any kind of human considerations. The choice belonged to God himself.

And so he quotes in verse 13, he quotes from Malachi: “As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I have hated.” Question: why did Jacob receive the blessing and not Esau? Answer: because God loved Jacob and he hated Esau. I remember the first time I really was pushed to think through this verse. It was in a graduate course in theology, my first graduate course in systematic theology. And the professor was dealing with this matter of election, didn’t want to come up on the Calvinistic side. And so he said, “Let’s understand what this word love and hate means. Hate,” he said, “does not necessarily mean hate.” And then he pointed to the gospels where Jesus says, “If a man does not hate his mother or father, he is not worthy of me.” There is a comparative kind of use of the word. And that’s what it means here, he said. And I thought, okay, hate means to love less. How’d that work out for Esau? What difference does it make to Esau? If you’re Esau and you soften this to say God doesn’t hate, he just loves less, how does it make a difference for Esau? It makes no difference at all.

Around that same time, this is decades ago, I was in a church where the pastor was a country preacher, did not have much theological education, but he was a faithful man, and he was preaching through Romans the day I was there, and he’s in Romans chapter nine, and he reads this verse, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,” verse 13. And he’s trying to grapple with it, and he’s trying to be faithful. And he says, “What does that mean? Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.” And he let the congregation hang. He said, “I’ll tell you what that means. It means Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. That’s what it means.” I thought, well, there’s a good guy. You’ve got to do that with the Bible. You just follow any path it leads you. And that’s where this verse leads you.

And in fact, verse 13 here, I want you to look at it again. Two propositions are made: Jacob I’ve loved, Esau I’ve hated. Here’s a test as to how well your mind is shaped by the Bible. Which of those two propositions gives you trouble? Which of those two propositions, “Jacob I’ve loved, Esau I’ve hated,” which of those makes you nervous? You think somehow that God loved Jacob because he’s a good guy and God hated Esau because he’s a bad guy? I think if our minds are shaped by a right understanding of God and man in sin, it will be the first part of the verse that’s stunning. “Jacob I’ve loved”—it’s an amazing thing. I thought he would hate Esau; that’s a given.

Now once you’ve said all of this, that the distinctions made between men come from God, one receives blessing, one does not, and it’s God who makes the difference—once you’ve said that, an objection immediately comes up, right? That’s not fair. And I want you to see how Paul anticipates that very objection.

Is There Injustice On God’s Part?

Verse 14: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means.” Now, just a bit of an aside here. And I’ve pointed this out many times in discussion with people who don’t like the doctrine of election. In many understandings of the doctrine of election that are offered today, there is no problem of injustice. They’ve got that handled. And there’s no way after hearing their doctrine of election, someone would say, “That’s not fair.” They’ve got that all handled. And what you can say at that point is whatever else is true or not about their doctrine, it’s not the same as Paul’s. Because Paul’s argument anticipates that objection and he has to take it up.

So he takes up the question, “What shall we say then? Is that not fair?” And then Paul denies the objection: “By no means.” To answer it, he quotes Exodus, verse 15: “For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Notice the apostle does not back up. He does not say, people say, “Oh, this is not fair,” and Paul says, “Oh, no, wait a minute, you misunderstood.” He doesn’t back up. In fact, he pushes the point and he stresses that God is under obligation to no one anywhere. How and when and on whom God shows mercy is his choice. That’s his point. There’s no man or woman anywhere who can lay claim to God’s mercy or God’s compassion. All are undeserving, all are under wrath, and if God determines to show mercy to one person, that’s one more than deserves it.

And if there’s any verse in the Bible that puts a lie to the doctrine of free will—salvation by free will—it is verse 16: “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy.” In fact, he takes it further, verse 17. Here we have another illustration from Exodus. “For the scripture says to Pharaoh, for this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” And verse 18 concludes again: “So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”

You see how Paul is just driving his point. God is not obligated to anyone, anywhere, anytime. This is his mercy, and how he shows that mercy is up to him. If God should show mercy to one person, or if he should show mercy to ten people, or a hundred, or if he should show mercy to a great multitude of people from every tribe and nation under heaven and save them—is that unfair? Is God somehow under suspicion because he doesn’t save every rebel that hates him? Doesn’t the governor have the right to pardon a criminal at his own discretion? Since when is God obligated to show his mercy to anyone? And if he determines to save some and leave the others to their sin, he’s not unfair. He is in fact merciful.

And we should be careful not to misunderstand this frightening word in verse 18: “harden.” Whom he will, he hardens. Now he writes that about Pharaoh, verse 17. What did God have to do to harden Pharaoh’s heart? Did you think maybe that Pharaoh was a secret believer and he really wanted to obey but God was forcing him to disobey? What did God have to do to Pharaoh to harden his heart? Nothing, just leave him to himself. What would God have had to do to harden your heart? Nothing. Just leave you to yourself, and we would have all been hardened.

And this is the point that is entirely overlooked, I think, in all of the objections against the doctrine of election. Humanity is not a people clamoring for God and God refusing them. Humanity is in rebellion against God unanimously to a man. And if God just leaves them alone, leaves them to their own choice, they’ll be hardened and he will be fair. In fact, our praise to God as Christians is exactly this: that God did not leave us to ourselves; that God came to us in mercy and saved us.

But the objections still come, and we have another one then in verse 19. Paul anticipates another objection: “You will say to me then, why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” Well, if God’s decreed who he’s going to save, the others are left. Well, who can argue with God’s decree? “That’s not my fault if I don’t believe.”

Now, on one level, the answer comes, and we’ll see this later in verses 30 and following. On one level, the answer is God blames you because it was your choice. He left you to your choice, and that’s why you’re to blame for your condemnation. But that’s not how Paul answers here. In verses 20 to 24, notice again, he doesn’t back up, but he pushes the point: “Who are you, O man, to answer back against God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use, another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, for which he has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?”

That’s the point Paul is pushing here. God has freedoms. God has rights. God has prerogatives. What kind of pottery you become is not your choice. It’s the potter’s choice. And he takes this lump of fallen humanity and molds out of it some really nice vases for glory. And out of that same lump of fallen humanity makes some old ashtray or spittoon that’s going to be thrown away. What are these objects to argue back, “Why’d you make me like this? I want to be like that.” You forget who you are. He’s the potter. You have no rights before him. Paul is arguing here that they all have it backwards.

And the point he stresses, beginning in verse 20: God is not accountable to you. You see that? Who are you to reply against God? You can see how the whole question rests here. The whole answer to the question of the so-called problem of justice in divine election is not found in your idea of justice, in your idea of what God should do. The answer to this so-called problem of justice in the doctrine of election is found in the distance between the creator and the creature. And in fact, you are not just the creature; you are the sinful creature. And you have no right, you have no claim whatever to his mercy. All you deserve is wrath.

God has rights to do with it as he will. And God, in fact, has determined to honor himself both in choosing some for glory and leaving others to themselves to display his power and his wrath. In both cases, he will be honored by his wrath or by his mercy. God has rights. He’s free to dispense his mercy as he will. In fact, God has chosen to glorify himself in choosing some and in leaving others to themselves. In the one, he’ll be honored in the display of mercy. In the other, he’ll be honored in the display of his wrath. Put very bluntly, this whole saving thing is not about you. It’s about God. He has set out to honor himself in the display of mercy. And he will not have anyone come up afterwards and say, “I’m saved because I…” In fact, that’s what Paul has in mind in Romans chapter 11, where he says, “Behold, the kindness and the severity of God.”

So Paul takes on these objections. You say it’s not fair? Who are you to reply against God? You’re the sinner. You have no claims in this argument at all. All you deserve is wrath. Well, Paul’s still not done. Verses 25 to 29 don’t have time to get into in any depth, but we can read them quickly here. Verses 25 to 29, he cites three passages from the Old Testament prophets:

As indeed, he says in Hosea, those who were not my people, I will call my people. And her who was not beloved, I will call beloved. In the very place where it was said to them, you are not my people, there they will be called sons of the living God. And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay. And as Isaiah predicted, if the Lord of hosts had not left us with offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.

That is, if it were not for God’s intervention in mercy sovereignly, they’d all be lost. If he left them all to themselves, they’d all been hardened. But in fact, not only among the Jews, but among the Gentiles, there is a number—God has a people whom he will save because by his grace he will intervene and bring them in. Sustained argument; he’s still holding all the way through here.

Why Is Israel Not Saved?

Now there’s one more question that remains, that hasn’t quite fully been answered. And that’s the question that came up in verse 19. Who is to blame for your unbelief? Who is to blame for your unbelief? If you don’t believe, can you say, “Well, God didn’t choose me. That’s why I don’t believe.” And the answer finally fully comes in verses 30 to 33.

What shall we say then that Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it? That is, a righteousness by faith. But that Israel, who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness, did not attain in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. And they have stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written, Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. Whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.

Why is Israel not saved? Paul finally takes it on. Israel’s begun to lose out. Why is it they’re not saved? Well, you might say because God didn’t choose them. That’s not how Paul answers it here. Why is Israel not saved? Because they didn’t believe. That’s why they are not saved. And he leaves it all at their feet. In fact, chapter 10 verses 1 and following picks up on that same argument. They started pursuing righteousness as though they could accomplish it, and they refused the righteousness that comes by faith in Christ, which is the very purpose of the law to point us to.

So Israel does not believe. Why don’t they believe? Why aren’t they saved? Because they don’t believe. And the same is true for you or anyone else. If you are not saved, don’t blame God. If you are not saved, it is because you will not believe. That’s the answer that the scriptures give. It is your own fault. The fact of the matter is, the offer of the gospel is there. As God will say in chapter 10, he holds out his hands with outstretched arms to a rebellious and contrary people. He has said, if you come, you will not be ashamed. If you believe on Jesus, you’ll be received.

If you are not saved, it is because you will not believe. And you can argue all day that God has left you and he didn’t choose you, but the fact of the matter is you have gotten what you want. And God is just in condemning. If God passes you by and leaves you to your sin and you have not believed, you’ll have only yourself to blame. No one in hell will ever be able to raise an accusing finger to God. In a word, if you escape God’s wrath, you will have only him to thank for it. And if you perish, you will have only yourself to blame.

And that ought to shape our response to a doctrine like this. What should be our response as believers to a doctrine like this and a passage like this? Number one, just quickly, this ought to humble us. Our standing before God is good. And our standing before God is good only because God has shown us mercy. Had he left me to myself, I would have continued in my sin and I would have perished. If anything ought to humble us, it ought to be this. We have no room whatever for self-congratulations. I am what I am by the grace of God. End of story.

And that in turn, secondly, this doctrine ought to teach us to bow. This doctrine ought to teach us to be worshipers. And in fact, he told us that in verse 23. The purpose of all this was to display his glory, whether in mercy or in wrath. This is to display his glory. And God wants us to know that he will not share his glory and salvation with anyone else. And he wants us to know this is all his doing.

In fact, our testimony is exactly this: When I was going my own way, I was going to hell. But God in mercy interrupted me, and he brought me to Christ. Now why he did that, I don’t know. He has his reasons; he’s not revealed them. And why me and not someone else, I have no idea. But my testimony is that when I was going my own way, I was going to hell, but God intervened in mercy and he saved me. And all I can say is that God in sovereign mercy chose to save me. He took the initiative and had he not, I would perish. End of story.

Brothers and sisters, this doctrine of election is not some party line that we want to tout here so that we can stand taller over others who don’t believe it. This is not something so we can throw up a flag for John Calvin. This doctrine is designed to teach us to kneel, to bow before God, and acknowledge that what we have, we have because of sovereign mercy. And this great—and I hope you can see it—warm and wonderful truth is revealed to us in order to make us worshipers so that we can say not just “to God be the glory,” but “to God be all the glory.” Amen.

Let’s pray. Our Father, what marvelous truths, what an awesome God this doctrine reveals. Lord, we all recognize the truth of it. Had you left us to ourselves, we would perish. Rather than struggle with this doctrine, rather than deny it, Lord, help us to glory in it. You have chosen to save us for your glory. And may we daily rejoice and praise you for the mercy that you’ve shown to us, undeservedly, in Christ Jesus. In his name we pray, amen.

As we conclude this morning, let’s turn in our Trinity hymnals, number 403. We’ll sing together, “Not What My Hands”