Religion: the big bad word

Religion seems to have gotten a bad name as of late. I have listened to a lot of K-love over the last week, and heard a commercial for a website www.NotReligion.com. The catch phrase of the day, as quoted on the NotReligion.com website, is "It's not about Religion--It's about Relationship." I pose this question to any and all: What is so wrong with religion?

religion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I have provided a definition of Religion from dictionary.com above, and I tell you, doesn't sound so bad to me. I have a "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power [...] regarded as Creator and Governor of the universe." In addition to that I hold"a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader," namely Jesus Christ our Lord. Belief and action. Any of those parts of the definition seem to fit.

James the brother of Jesus wrote "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:26-27.)

But if someone holds the catch phrase of the day "relationship, not religion" how can they understand what James has written? We cripple their understanding. As James points out there is good religion and bad religion. Religion and relationship is not either/or but both/and. They are not mutually exclusive.

James goes on to write in chapter 2:14-18 "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."

You cannot have a real relationship with Jesus that is not accompanied by works. But that is what Religion vs. Relationship seems to pair against each other, and what James addresses.

I understand that the word "religion" has recieved a bad connotation, and brings to mind irrational actions by fanatics, or any other myriad of other notions. But what are we to do when something recieves a bad connotation. Scrap it? The word "Baptist" has a bad connotation to some, and so many churches now sport "Community Church" on their signs, jettisoning baptist altogether. What if the word "Christian" recieves a bad connotation. Will we stop calling ourselves Christians? (In fact for many it does have a bad connotation...started out as an insult!)

No. We correct the connotation. Teach. Anything else just confuses the issues.

The message of Romans 9

As the final for my New Testament class, my professor assigned us the task of writing a sermon. The sermon could be over a few different choices of texts, and from that list I chose Romans 9. It is not a systematic theology, nor does it answer every question you may think of, but I believe with my heart this is the message Paul is conveying. Huge I know, but if you would like to read feel free to do so. Let me know what you think.

In Christ,

-Tommy

INTRODUCTION: ROMANS 9

Paul writes in Romans 9:6-13:

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 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."[1]

Such words as Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated can make us cringe the first time we hear them. The underlying issues and theological debates about them have split churches, families, seminaries, and during the Reformation lead to the deaths of many believers. I say this not to cause any to hide from the issues, but to admonish us all to stick closely to our infallible words, the Bible. With that in mind, what is it that Paul is conveying here?

For some background on this passage, Paul wrote in chapter 8:28-30: And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.[2] Paul taught that in eternity past God predestined those he foreknew to be called, justified, and glorified--in other words, every step in salvation. What is the basis of this predestining?

BACKGROUND: FOREKNOWLEDGE

Paul writes in Romans 8:28-30 that those he foreknew he also predestined. He does not write what the basis of the foreknowledge is. Some have speculated that it could be a foreknowledge of what man would do. Paul goes on in chapter 9 of Romans to give examples of predestination, which Paul has already said is based on foreknowledge. Those examples can gauge our understanding of what foreknowledge here means.

In Romans chapter 9, Paul raises and answers the question of why many of the Jews rejected Christ and salvation. To illustrate, Paul draws out the example of Gods choice of Jacob over Esau. God elected Jacob over Esau in foreknowledge. Yet in this example of God choosing Jacob over Esau, understanding foreknowledge to mean a knowledge of what Jacob or Esau would do does not fit. Gods choice was made before they were born, before that had done anything good or bad. God chose this way so that [His] purposes in election might continue, not because of works but because of his call.

So what kind of foreknowledge is this? This passage underscores that God knew persons, not merely some fact about them, for example the fact that some persons would believe. The foreknowledge Paul writes of here is a personal, relational knowledge. This personal knowledge is a necessity for any sort of predestining. For example, it would be irrational for God to predestine Jacob to anything if God had no knowledge that he would create a Jacob. The basis of Jacobs election to receive grace over Esau is not based upon any human activity foreseen or performed. Paul here writes nothing of God basing His choice of certain persons or groups for election upon any foreseen choices or foreseen faith, nor does any other passage of scripture.[3] Before we go further I want to affirm that all who have faith will be saved, and all saved will have faith. But as our text shows, this is not the basis for election unto salvation.

THE PROBLEM PAUL ADDRESSES

The conclusion Paul draws after Romans 8:28-30 is that nothing shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Paul then raises an issue his readers would certainly have raised. The issue raised in Romans 9:1-5 regards the nation of Israels unbelief. Romans 9:6-13 is the answer to that question. So if the elect are predestined to glorification and everything in between, and nothing shall separate them from the love of Christ, what about Israel? The answer in Romans 9:6b is that not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.[4] That is, within the nation of Israel God has elected some unto salvation. Not all natural descendants are predestined to be called, justified, and glorified.

Paul illustrates this truth through the election of Jacob, but not of Esau. A question: Is Paul referencing the election of individuals, or groups, here? A first observation to make to answer the question is to realize that all groups are comprised of separate individuals, so in some sense the distinction is really a moot point. Further though, the text explicitly says the older shall serve the younger, referring to the individuals, not nations. If we must press further still, consider that Paul writes of Jacob, an individual, and Esau, an individual, to explain why Jewish individuals in Pauls own day rejected Christ. The initial question Paul raises is of why the group descended from Jacob is not homogenous in their faith, and Pauls answer to the dilemma is that even from the beginning, God elected individuals for faith, not whole family or tribal lines.

The example of Jacob is not an isolated example of Gods election in the past that we can dismiss as being irrelevant to election in Christ. The election of Jacob is an example of Gods election of persons for salvation through Christ Jesus that has direct implication for our own salvation.

BASIS OF ELECTION

Since Gods choice in eternity past is not based on foreseen faith or other human activity, what is it based on? Paul teaches in Romans 8:28 that we are called according to his purpose.[5] In Ephesians 1:11 Paul echoes this, writes that the elect have been predestined according to him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.[6] We are elected according to Gods purposes, according to the inner counsel of the Trinity. Why God chooses some and not others is beyond our understanding. Though the counsel of Gods will is beyond our understanding, we cannot make the leap to say it is not arbitrary.

One thing Paul did not write is that man is predestined according to mans free and sovereign will. We would often like to think that. In pride, Israel sought to establish their own [righteousness, and] did not submit to Gods righteousness.[7] We know we cant take the credit for our salvationwell, at least not all of it. But how about the decisive part, the 0.1hat makes the critical difference? Christ made the sacrifice. Christ made the way, extends the offer, but my choice apart from any outside influence to place faith in Christ is what tips the scales. Ephesians 2:8-9 reads For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one can boast.[8] As this passage tells us, even our faith is a gift. Not just the object of the faith, Jesus Christ. The faith itself is a gift. Why? So that no one can boast.

If we choose not to believe that God sovereignty elects those who will be saved, but that mans will is the decisive factor, we must ask What makes the difference?[9]

This is a question I have asked myself, and I pray that you will ask yourself honestly. Why did I make the choice for Christ and not the person next to me? Am I smarter? Am I wiser? Perhaps I have a will more disposed to believe than a lost persons? Perhaps I just make better choices, ultimately the right choice. The righteous choice...meaning I believe myself to be more righteous? An answer of yes to any of those questions would certainly leave me room for boasting. And plop me right into the middle of a heresy, believing that what separates me from the lost is grace plus some merit or ability within myself that others lack. That is salvation by works, not by Grace.[10] I say this in all love, but we must humble ourselves and repent of such prideful thinking.

What truly makes people differ is what God does, and so salvation is by grace alone at its most foundational level.

So why was Esau not elect? Charles Spurgeon writes of a mans encounter with a friend in An All-Round Ministry that may give us some insight:

One said the other day, "I hate that text which says, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau have I hated.'" "Why?" said a friend; "what is the difficulty to your mind?" The reply was, "I cannot see why God should hate Esau." "Nay," said our friend, "I am not at all surprised that God hated Esau, but I am greatly amazed that God loved Jacob."[11]

In Romans 9:13 Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3, Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have hated.[12] God elects to love Jacob on the basis of sovereign grace, not foreseen human activityworks. Sovereign, undeserved grace is the reason God loves Jacob. So why did God chose to hate Esau? Esau received Gods justice because Esau was a sinner. We all deserve Gods wrath and hatred. We willingly rebel against God, and are all deserving of punishment and wrath, with myself at the top of the list.

OBJECTIONS

Paul anticipates an objection to this teaching though. Romans 9:14-15: What shall we say then? Is there injustice on Gods part? By no means! For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.[13]

God has every right to have mercy on whichever sinners He decides to have mercy, and have compassion on whomever He sovereignly decides to have compassion. Those who God has decided to have mercy upon we call the elect.

God also has every right to not show mercy to sinners. God instead gives them the justice we all deserve. Theologians call this reprobation. The reprobates have been passed over for salvation. In not choosing them for life, God has determined not to change them. The reprobates will continue in the sins they love, and finally be judged for what they have done.

In neither case is their injustice on Gods part. The choice of God to show mercy to some depends completely upon God, as Paul writes further: Romans 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.[14]

God sometimes goes a step further with the reprobate and removes the restraining influences that keep them from acts of extreme disobedience. Paul goes on, writing in Romans 9:17-18 a quote from Exodus 9:16 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.[15]

This hardening where God abandons a reprobate sinner, is itself a penalty for sin. This is the case with Pharaoh. God allowed Pharaoh to do what Pharaoh really wanted.

Not only does God receive Glory for showing mercy, but as Paul tells us in this passage, but God also receives glory in removing his restraining influences. God removed his restraining influences from Pharaohhardened himthat God might show his power in defeating him and Gods name might be declared everywhere.

What I have just said probably makes many of you uneasy. In spite of what I have said regarding Pauls teaching, it may even still sound horrible or unjust to you. It assaults our pride, vanity, self-sufficiency, and sense of justice. Terms such as double-predestination and supralapsarianism may come to mind. I pray as Paul prayed in Ephesians 1 that our Lord may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe...[16] I pray that apart from any loaded terminology or previously held bias, you will believe our text and what Paul has written.

This teaching raises all further objections. One objection might go something along these lines: If men are born with a sin nature bent on rebellion against God, and man can never desire to obey God from birth, how can God still find fault with a man? By what right can God blame a man for his sins when God has hardened that man against Himself?

Yet again, Paul anticipates this objection. Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?[17] Before looking at how Paul addresses this objection, I want to point out something that should convince you that God really does chose to elect some for salvation and pass over others, based sovereignly on Gods will and not mans foreseen acts. The objection Paul addresses can only naturally flow from this teaching.

Paul is not raising a theoretical objection with no basis in reality. This objection of Why does [God] still find fault? For who can resisted His will? can only logically follow from one interpretation of the preceding passages: that God has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills, he hardens. God elects some unto salvation and hardens others against Him.

If this were not what Paul taught, the question could be easily dismissed with an answer such as Mans will is sovereign. God is therefore perfectly just.

Instead, Pauls answer is somewhat shocking: Romans 9:20-21 But 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? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonored use?[18] Instead of directly answering the objection, or dismissing it as irrelevant, Paul asserts Gods right and authority to create us as He sees fit, according to His purposes.

At this point you may well reject everything I have said because you believe it to be a contradiction. Knowing that God is righteous, you may see a contradiction between God holding man responsible for his sins and not coming to him for forgiveness, when man in unable to naturally exercise his free will to repent and accept the offer of forgiveness made to him.

Yet the Bible makes this very assertion. Matthew 11:28 reads Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.[19] This is a real offer Jesus makes to all men, in fact commands of all men. Yet Jesus also says in John 6:44a that No man can come to me[20]

No contradiction exists though. An example of a contradictory statement would be to say I have a square circle. It is a contradiction in terms, and is inconsistent. There are no contradictions in the Bible. The Bible is consistent. What we do have in the Bible, though, are paradoxes and mysteries.

The example of Jesus statements is a paradox. Paradoxes appear to be contradictions, but given enough information and sound reason, paradoxes can be seen to be consistent. The information we are missing from Jesus statements is that No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, John 6:44[21]. So some men do in fact come to God, but not naturally. They come when God draws them.

The Bible also contains mysteries. How God works all things together for good for those who are called according to His purposes is a mystery. We can never know enough to completely understand how that can happen, though God may choose to reveals small segments of this to us.

The tension between Gods sovereignty and mans responsibility is a mystery. God has revealed certain aspects of how it works and Gods purposes behind this, but we can never know everything. Why God chooses to elect some and not others is according to the counsel of Gods will. The counsel of Gods will is well beyond our understanding, and so that is a mystery too. We can only speak with certainty about what God has revealed clearly. Much of the time we may not understand. But please understand this: we must apprehend the truth even if we cant comprehend the truth. In the absence of understanding we are still responsible to believe what God reveals.

An example of this is the Trinity. We latch on to the truth that God is one in essence but three in person. Yet a full understanding is beyond our finite minds. Other religions accuse Christianity of being polytheistic based on a misunderstanding of this doctrine. They demand to understand, and reject anything they cant fit into a neat box.

Lets bring this full circle back around to the objection Paul addresses: Why does he still find fault, for who has resisted his will? Our fallen, finite minds may not be able to grasp how Gods justice works. It is a mystery. Paul addresses it as a mystery, simply asserting Gods right to make us as He deems best, and Gods authority to judge us. Though I will explore this issue in a moment, Pauls assertion of Gods authority should settle the debate for us.

Jesus himself openly taught both man's responsibility and his moral inability in the most famous gospel presentation in the Scriptures, John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.[22] This verse explains what God did and what He requires of man to be saved. Fairly straight forward. But Jesus isn't finished yet. Just two verses later where, in the same breath as John 3:16, Jesus says:

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things [thats all of us at some point!] hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God.[23]

Apart from God renewing a mans heart, man is morally unable to respond positively to the Gospel because man does not want to. Mans will loves darkness and evil rather than the goodness and the truth. Moral inability differs from physical inability in that a man would not be condemned if his inability to come to God was merely due to a physical handicap. Moral inability is like a man who owes a great debt that cannot be repaid. Although he is responsible to honor his debt he does not have the wherewithal to do so. That is our position before God prior to the Holy Spirit applying the new birth. Man owes a debt he cannot repay, but he is still responsible for it. In other words, we are required to have faith in Christ but our love for darkness and hatred for God keep us from doing so.[24]

APPLICATION

As I have said, Paul writes of mans accountability as well. Man is accountable for his every word, thought, and deed, for his belief or disbelief. Paul writes in Romans 10:9-10 [that] if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Only if a man has faith will he be saved. The Bible does not present a fatalistic system where human choices and human decisions do not make any difference. In fatalism, no matter what we do, things are going to turn out as they have been previously ordained. Therefore it is futile to attempt to influence the outcome of our lives by putting forth any effort.[25]

Quite to the contrary, Paul writes But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent. [] So faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. Romans 9:14-15a, 17.[26]

Human involvement is expected and required. God has not only ordained the ends, he has also ordained the means. We have no way of knowing who is elect and who is reprobate when we are evangelizing, so we are called to evangelize to everyone. If you cant understand why that is needed, the command of Jesus should be enough.

We who hold this view of Gods sovereign election have one weight taken off our shoulders that many other Christians do not: If we are faithful to present the word of God, the gospel, to the lost, God takes care of the results. His word will not return void. It is not as though the word of God has taken no effect. This truth can free us from temptation to use gimmicks and emotional lures in evangelizing, instead trusting in the power of Gods word to have every effect He intends it to have. The eternal destiny of someone is not dependant upon how attractive or persuasive we are, how good an showman I am, and that should cause us to sleep easy.

How should we respond to Pauls teaching on election? Accusations of unfairness? No, As Paul wrote in Romans 9:31b: If God be for us, who can be against us?[27] We need to humbly thank God for saving us, the elect who deserve no such election. Praise God for his mercy, power, majesty, and sovereignty!

Even more, as Paul writes in Romans 11:33-36 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.[28]

---

[1] Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[2] ESV.

1

[3] Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Intervarsity Press, 1994., 674-79.

[4] ESV.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., Romans 10:3.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Grudem, 674-79.

[10] Ibid., 674-79.

[11] C.H. Spurgeon. An All-Round Ministry. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Publishing, 1978., 289.

[12] ESV.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., John 3:19-21.

[24] http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/John316-321.html

[25] Grudem, 674-79.

[26] ESV.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.