I would like us to turn again tonight to the book of Romans and to continue the study of Romans chapter 9 verse 19 and following. Let me give just a very quick review of where we were and so as not to take our time with review. In these verses the Apostle Paul has set forth many things, several of which we have already considered. In the first several verses he has set forth his own his own heart's disposition for the nation of Israel, his love for them, his anguish for them, his willingness to give up his spiritual welfare for them. He has, in the second place, stated something of their present condition. He has stated much of their present blessings, of how they are the people of God. They are the ones whose is the adoption and the glory and the covenants and so forth. And he's also implied and goes on later to state that they are apostate and that they have come under the hardening influence of God and are lost. And that raises the concern, how can it be that they are so privileged and yet are apostate and under the hardening influence of God? Has God's word failed? Paul goes on in verse 6 to state categorically that no, God's word has not failed. He goes on to explain that God has from the beginning never promised and never in fact has given salvation to every physical descendant of Abraham that God has from the beginning and does now operate according to His purposes as expressed in election. Those whom He has chosen in the past have, in fact, been saved. Those whom He has chosen in the future shall, in fact, be saved. His word has not failed. His promises have not failed. His purposes will always stand according to election. And in those verses, ending in verse 13, he makes very clear statements about God sovereignly choosing whom He will, loving whom He will, and hating whom He will. In chapter 9, verse 14, Paul raises the first objection to the doctrine of election, and the first objection is this. The first objection is, is God fair? Is there unrighteousness with God if God chooses to love some and hate others? Paul's response is to say, absolutely not. God is not unfair, but he makes it clear the issue is not fairness. If God were only fair, everyone would be lost. If God were only righteous, everyone would be lost. The question is a question of mercy. And he goes on to say, absolutely, God is sovereign and God is correct to sovereignly show mercy to whom he will and to harden whom he will. We should be glad that God is not only righteous. We should be glad that God is not only fair. Somebody challenges us and say, well, how can God be fair? We say, thankfully, God is more than fair. It's God. The issue is that there is mercy with God, which is far beyond righteousness, not in contradiction to righteousness, but far more than righteousness. He raises a second objection to the doctrine of election, verse 19, and that's where we were this morning. The second objection to the doctrine of election is if God chooses whom he will and hardens whom he will, if that's the case, who can withstand God's will? And therefore, how can God hold anyone accountable? How can God hold anyone responsible for his conduct if, in fact, it is God who chooses to save and not to save? Well, in this passage, Paul responds to that question in three overlapping and yet distinct ways. Let us read the passage together and then draw attention to those three responses. Verse 19, Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstands his will? Nay, but, O man, who art thou that thou replyest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, From the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honour, And another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he before prepared unto glory, even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Paul asserts three overlapping ideas in his response. How can God hold men accountable? The first response of the Apostle Paul is that we must bow in silence before God's majesty and accept his statements without challenge. Who art thou, O man, to reply against God? Who are you to challenge God? Whatever God says, that must be received. It is altogether right to inquire of God. It is altogether right to sincerely question God's ways. But once God has spoken and once we have seen what the statements of the Bible are, God cannot be challenged. He must not be challenged. If the statements of the Scriptures clearly are that God does choose to love some and to hate others, if the statements of the Scriptures clearly are that it is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, if the Scriptures clearly say those things, we have satisfied honest inquiry. And now it becomes a matter of stopping the challenge and simply submitting to what God has declared. The second line of response by the Apostle Paul is to say that we must appreciate that God has the right and authority to do whatever he chooses with his creation. The first is that we have no right to challenge Him. The second is, closely related, we must appreciate. And I said appreciate as opposed to understand. We must appreciate, we must sense, we must rightly apprehend that God has the right and authority to do whatever he desires with his creation. Now look at how Paul states this in the second part of verse 20 and verse 21. The first part of verse 20, Nay, but, O man, who art thou that replyest against God? And now notice this closely related idea. Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor? Paul makes his point with a very common sense type of illustration. And it is wonderful that Paul can deal with such sublime and profound and mysterious subjects and bring up the most commonplace kind of illustrations to make his point. It is a very commonplace, common-sense argument. It is unthinkable to question that a potter does not have the right to do just what he wants to do with the clay from which he makes his pottery. He is not accountable to the clay. It's a very common sense kind of argument. The man who is a potter, he has a lump of clay before him. He doesn't owe that lump any explanation for what he's going to do. He doesn't have to be accountable to them. He doesn't have to consult with them. He is the one who has a supreme, unchallengeable right to do whatever he wants with that lump of clay that lies before him. The potter may take this one big glop of clay, and he has it stored wherever he stores his clay, and he uncovers it one day. And he goes to that big old lump and glop of clay, and he takes some of it, and he's been commissioned to make a lovely vase that is to stand in some wealthy man's hallway. And so he labors with that, and labors with that, and fashions and molds this very lovely thing that is fit for a king's house. And the day's about to end and he remembers that his wife wants him to make some kind of a basin to catch the table scraps and the potato peels and take them out to the hogs in the night. And so he goes back to the same lump of clay. He takes a little bit more of it and he very quickly throws this thing together and takes it home for his wife to carry out the table scraps in. He has the right to do that. He goes to that same lump. If he wants to take something from that and make it lovely, that's his right. If he wants to take something from that and make it crude and homely, that's his right. He has an absolute right over that lump of clay, and he doesn't owe the lump any explanation. Well, that's the figure that Paul uses to describe God. Now, that's not something that just pops out of the stuff of Paul's own thinking. That was a very common illustration used especially by Isaiah in the Old Testament to describe the absolute rights and authority of God over his people. I'd like you to look at two of these references in the Old Testament. One is in Jeremiah chapter 18. Please turn to Jeremiah chapter 18. In this passage, Jeremiah is concerned to demonstrate the unrestrained, the unrestricted right which God has over his creatures. Look in Jeremiah chapter 18, verse 1, the word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord saying, Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter's house. And behold, the potter was making a work on the wheels. And when the vessel that he made of the clay was marred in the hand of the potter, he made it again into another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it." Now, you understand what he saw in the potter's house. There's the potter. He's got this lump of clay. He's making something out of it. And as it develops on the wheel, it's turning, and he's molding it and shaping it. And as it develops on the wheel, he doesn't like what he sees. And so he just lumps it up again and starts over. He didn't like what was molding in his hands. He didn't like the way it was going. So he had the right to just stop. He took the thing, pressed it back into a lump again, and reshaped it into something else. Now the application is in verse 5, Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, O house of Israel, Cannot I do with you as this potter, saith the Lord? Behold, as the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it, if that nation concerning which I have spoken turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to plant and to build it? If they do that which is evil in my sight, and they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them." God was demonstrating that he had the right to do with the nations whatever he wanted to do. And the Jews wanted to refute that. They acted as if God had a certain obligation to treat them with mercy because they were his chosen people and to treat the Gentile nations with wrath because they were the Gentile nations. And God said, listen, if I send my prophets to the Gentile nations and they repent, if I want to reshape them into a vessel that's for honor, I can do so. If I send my prophets to you and you won't repent, you're my chosen people. I've shaped you as a lovely vessel. I can reshape you. It's my power to do that. It's my right. It's my prerogative. Don't think about questioning me. I am like the potter who has an absolute supremacy and an absolute right over the clay. Another passage, and I think for the sake of time, we'll not turn to there, is Isaiah chapter 64, verses 8 and through 9. A different but similar point is made. God has absolute right over his people, and they must rest and be dependent upon his ways. Paul's point is that God does have the right to love some people and to hate some people. He does have the right to choose some people and not to choose others. He does have the right to do anything which he chooses to do with them. If he has chosen to send them all to perdition, he has the right to do so. He has the right to do whatever his righteous judgment declares. Now, it's impossible to conceive of God doing something wicked, so I'm not saying that he has the right to do something wicked. It's impossible to conceive that. But he does have the right to do anything which his righteous judgment determines. God has the right and power and authority to make some men the recipients of his wrath, and God has the right and power and authority to make some men the recipients of his mercy. And God has exercised that right before our very eyes, that we, in our experience, have seen ourselves and others, some made vessels of mercy, others made vessels of wrath. He has that right, and we have seen him exercise that right even among us. Now, this is a general principle which must be taken into account in all of our dealings with God. God has absolute right and power and authority to do with his creation as he sees fit. God has the absolute power and right and authority to require of his creatures whatever he sees fit. This, of course, is a fundamental point of contention between most men and most women in the world and God. They do not want to recognize that God has supreme right over them. The passage that is in Psalm chapter 2 is very much relevant to our present time. The psalmist contemplates the tumult in the world, and he says that the nation's rage The peoples meditate a vain thing, the kings of the earth set themselves together, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and his anointed, saying, let us break their bands asunder and cast their cords from us. And in the context of the psalm, the writer is referring to how people consciously are trying to throw off the constraints of God. They do not want to acknowledge that God has any rights over them. They would never be willing to consider themselves as a lump of clay and God being the potter who has absolute rights over them. The feminists will not admit that God has right over their bodies or their careers or their choices. Homosexuals will not admit that God has right over their conduct or over their bodies. Politicians will not admit that God has right over their decisions and over their choices. Public school theoreticians will not admit that God has any rights. Nobody in the world wants to admit that God has any rights. Men think they're autonomous. Men think they really are, to use that language of poetry, the captain of their ship and the master of their own destinies. Men think they have power in their own hands. But God, in the scripture, says that He is the Creator. We are the creatures. He has absolute right over us in every department of existence. Now, fundamental to being a Christian And I appreciate that I'm speaking primarily to a Christian audience. Fundamental to being a Christian is that we have come to a place by God's power and by God's kindness that we do see that God has absolute rights over us. That's fundamental to being Christian. Fundamental to being a Christian is that the heart is bowed. There is no opposition, no challenge to God. He is the creator. He is the Lord. He is the master. We are the servants. We willingly and gladly put ourselves in that posture that we accept whatever his dealings are with us. Now, theoretically, that's true. In practice, however, sometimes we stray from what God has made us to be. But it's important that we appreciate what Paul is saying in this passage in reference to this objection concerning election. This principle has got to be worked out in our lives in every department. We have to appreciate that God has an absolute right over us in every area. If God chooses to exercise his rights over us by giving us poverty, or if God chooses to exercise His rights over us by giving us wealth, we must not challenge Him. If God chooses to exercise His rights over us by giving us great minds, or if God chooses to exercise His rights over us by giving us low levels of intelligence, we must not challenge God. We must acknowledge that it's God's prerogative to give us the kind of mind that He wants to give us. If God gives us the health and strength of a Clydesdale horse, or if God gives us the health and strength of a mouse on its deathbed, we do not have the right to challenge God. He has the right to dispose health to us as he sees fit. If God is pleased to give us a marriage partner that is perfectly suited to us, and almost without effort the marriage blossoms and grows into a wonderful thing, or if God chooses to give us a marriage partner that seems to be wholly unsuited to us, and every millimeter of growth seems to come after the hardest exertions, we do not have the right to challenge God. God has absolute rights over us. And the Christian is someone who says, yes, I am God's servant. He is my master. He has right to dispose of me as he sees fit. If he exercises his right to put me in this posture and in this position, financially, intellectually, gift-wise, matrimonial-wise, if this is how God has exercised his rights over me, I will serve God in that place. I will not challenge him. I will not rise up against him. I will not despise him. I will gladly accept. that he is the potter, I am the clay, I happily acknowledge my position before him. Krishna is somebody who not only in terms of providence, but also in terms of God's rule, gladly says, God has every right to require of me what he will. And so, when the great God, who has absolute rights as potter over the clay, when the great God says to husbands, you may not be bitter against your wives, No Christian man stands back and says, God, how can you ask that of me? You don't know my wife. How can you ask that of me? No. Every Christian man falls back and says, God's right. He does ask that. He accepts the commandment. Every Christian man accepts the commandment that he is to love his wife, that he is to nurture his wife. He doesn't step back and say, you can't ask this of me. You don't know my situation. No. He says, you are the king. You ask this of me. I'll do my best in this situation. Every Christian person gladly acknowledges that God has the right to require us to honor our parents. Now, some people have got bad parents, rotten parents. And somebody might fall back and say, well, God, you can't ask this. Not a Christian. A Christian stands back and says, it is humanly impossible. to obey this parent, to honor this parent, to show respect to this parent. But God has the right to ask this of me. God has every right to ask this of me. Who am I to challenge God? I will do it because God has made this requirement of me. Well, the point that I'm trying to make is a simple one. The objection is, how can God hold men accountable? The response is, He has the right to do what He chooses. And we have to work out that principle in all the areas of our life as Christians. Now, there is a third thing which he says in reference to this objection. How can God hold men accountable? Well, in the first place, he says we must bow in silence before God's majesty and accept his statements without challenge. In the second place, he says we must appreciate that God has the right and authority to do whatever he wants with his creatures. And in the third place, he asserts we must understand there is nothing unrighteous or inappropriate in God committing some persons to wrath and some persons to mercy. There is nothing unrighteous and there is nothing inappropriate in God committing some persons to wrath and some persons to mercy. People hear that and there's just something native that pops up. That can't be. It's so terrible. The passage says there is nothing inappropriate in God doing that. Now, look, please, at the text in Romans chapter 9 and verse 22. Notice the first part of verse 22. What if God? What if God, willing to show his wrath and so forth? That phrase, which in this version is translated, what if God, literally would be translated, but if God, the idea seems to be, what can be said if God is willing to show his wrath and make his power known and so forth? What can be said? Who could question what God does in this thing? Who could question the rightness of what God does? What could be wrong? What fault could be found if God does thus and thus? God has done nothing unrighteous or inappropriate in giving some to wrath and others to mercy. What if God does this, is the point. What can be wrong with this? What challenge can justly be made if God does this? That's how Paul introduces this. What can be said against God if he chooses to do this? Now, I'd like us to look at exactly what Paul says God does. I do believe that God is accused unjustly of things which he's never claimed to do. And so it's important that we look at what Paul says God does. And then you'll understand why he says, what if God does it? Who's going to challenge God if you understand what God does? Paul speaks in the first place of what God does in reference to the vessels of wrath. And in the second place, he speaks of what God does in reference to the vessels of mercy. And let's look at what he says God does. What if God does this? First, in reference to the vessels of wrath, look again at verse 22. What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction? Now, before we look at what God actually does with these vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction, I'd like you to look at how he describes them. Who is he talking about? What is this idea which is bound up in this phrase, vessels of wrath, quote, fitted for destruction? Now, follow with me a little bit. I don't want to lose anyone, but I would like to just for a moment say a few things that have to do with grammatical considerations, because it's a very important phrase to understand. In the original language, that word that is translated fitted in this version is a perfect passive participle. It means that these people are in a state of being ready for destruction. The participle may well be taken as an adjective, as a verbal adjective, and would be translated in this way. They are fit or ready for destruction. Now, it doesn't matter so much. Many of you might not have been interested in the technical statements that were made, but appreciate the conclusion of that. that what this is referring to is people who are in a state of being ready for destruction. They are people who are in a state that is appropriate for destruction. The emphasis is not upon who made them fit for destruction. The emphasis is upon the fact that they are in this state. The emphasis is that God views these people as suited, fitted for destruction when he chooses to pour his wrath upon them. They are in a state which deserves destruction. Destruction is appropriate for their condition. They are in a state that fits them for the wrath of God. Now, the point is they are not in a state of innocence. They are not in a state of innocence. They are in a state of rebellion, in a state of guilt, in a state of condemnation. They are in a state where their sins are full and they are fit. They are ready. It is appropriate for them to have punishment. Now, who made them fit for punishment? Who put them in this state, which is appropriate for destruction? That's a serious question. Who made them fit? Who made them be in this position or this state which is appropriate for destruction? Well, you know what God's enemies say? Or those, at least, the enemies of the scriptures and of truth. God's enemies want to say that from this passage, God took these people as innocent creatures and caused them to be sinful. Some want to say God made them sinful. God made them to be disobedient. God made them rebellious. And then he poured out his wrath upon them. They say the whole passage is saying that God created them to be objects of wrath. that God took them, innocent people, without any thought to their condition, and made them to be sinful so that he could be justified in pouring out his wrath upon them. But the passage does not say that. The passage says that God had the right to do with them as he would. The passage says he had the right to do with them whatever his righteous judgment determined. But in this passage, God is dealing with them as those who are fit for destruction. He's not dealing with them as innocent creatures. He's not dealing with them as creatures who are to be pitied and who are being forced by a strong-armed God into a position where they have to sin because that's what he's making them do. That's not what the passage says. The passage says he does have absolute right over these creatures. But He has absolute right over these creatures as sinful creatures. He has absolute right over these creatures as creatures who are fit for destruction. Don't let anyone take you to this passage and mix up the analogy. Don't let anyone take you to this passage and say, God just took everybody. Nobody is considered bad. God just took all these innocent people. And He took some innocent people and said, I'll make you wicked so I can punish you. And took some other innocent people and says, I'll make you wonderful so I can give you mercy. That is not at all what this passage is saying. This passage is saying God has absolute right over His creatures. Just like a potter has absolute right over the clay. This lump of clay is viewed as a lump that is fit for destruction. This lump of clay is viewed as a lump of clay that is ruined. And God takes this ruined lump of clay, and from that lump, he makes some vessels for wrath, and he makes others vessels for mercy. Who prepared them? Who made them fit for punishment? Who made it appropriate? Who brought them in the state where it would be appropriate for them to be punished, to be hardened, to be dealt with in the language of this passage? Well, who did that? Well, if the two choices are themselves and God, you can't answer incorrectly, because they both did it. Paul has already explained that in very large detail in Romans chapter 1. And I would like you to look back at Romans chapter 1. Who made them? fit for destruction. Well, they made themselves fit for destruction. Paul describes this process in Romans chapter 1 in reference to the Gentiles in verse 19. Because that which is known of God is manifest in them, for God manifested it unto them, for the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen. being perceived through the things that are made, even as everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because that knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things." What happened? God was kind to these people. God revealed himself to them through the creation and through their conscience. He revealed enough to them that they knew something of his mighty power and of his majestic Godhead and of his goodness. They would not be thankful. They would not worship Him as God. They would make idols. They would make idols that looked like reptiles and idols that looked like bulls and idols that looked like human beings. And they would worship their concept of God, but they would not be thankful and they would not worship Him as God. Now, who did that? They did that. God gave them mercy. God gave them common grace. God gave them the light of nature and conscience. They refused that. They made themselves turn from the creator to serve the creature. But that's not the whole story. You know the rest of the passage. Having done that, the text says God gave them over. God gave them over to a reprobate mind. God gave them over to what they wanted. God withdrew common grace. God withdrew restraints. God hardened them. God gave them over to what they wanted. So that by the time you get to the end of this chapter, everything that is perverse is being ascribed to the fact that God had abandoned them to let them do what they wanted to do. Who made them like that? They made themselves like that, and God consigned them to it, and they became fitted for destruction. The passage does not allow us to think that God just took a bunch of innocent people and said, OK, I'll take you innocent people and I'll make you ugly so that I can put my wrath upon you. I'll take you other innocent people and I'll show you grace so that you can be prepared for glory. He took people that were fit for destruction. And he dealt with them as people fit for destruction by their own choice and by his consignment. All right. That's a description, then, of these people. He did not make them sin. He did not make them evil. He did not force them to be evil so he could have some gleeful, ghoulish pleasure in disgorging his wrath upon them. They were that way, and he consigned them to it. Now, notice what the text says that God does. Three things that God does in reference to these people that are fit for destruction. Number one, it says that God is purposed. God is determined. God is willing. God has set his mind to show his wrath. In verse 22, God is determined. He has willed. He has purposed to show his wrath on them. Paul has already said that in Romans chapter 1 and verse 18, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hinder the truth in unrighteousness. God is committed to that. God is committed to showing his wrath upon those who are deserving of wrath. You remember Can you remember when we, so long ago, were studying this passage in Romans chapter 1 and verse 18, what God's wrath is? God's wrath is not the unprincipled passions that men are familiar with. God's wrath is not the wild rage that presses itself upon our passions in the moment. God's wrath is his principled, controlled, appropriate rage against sin. God's wrath is his necessary response. It is the necessary response of his holiness and righteousness as is aroused by sin. You read the first eight verses of Nahum chapter one and you get a very pointed and penetrating description of what the wrath of God is. The wrath of God is judicial. The wrath of God is a principled punishment for wrongdoing. And this passage says that God has determined that these people who are fit for destruction will be the vessels of wrath. They will be like a large vase that he pours and pours and pours his wrath upon them until there is no more wrath to pour out. That's the first thing the text says that God is determined to do. with these people that are fit for destruction. The second thing that the text says is that God is determined to make known his power in their punishment. God is determined with these people who are fit for destruction, not merely to show forth his wrath, but also to show forth his power. And if you let your mind dwell on this idea, it is awing and sobering beyond comprehension. that God is determined to show his power in the display of wrath upon the vessels of wrath. God will display his power in gathering together all the people of the universe in the day of judgment. That isn't going to just happen because the winds happen to be blowing in the right direction. God is going to exert his power. And God will bring the people from the dead and from the seas and from the graves and from all parts of the living universe at the time. And God will, in his power, bring them together. And God will exert his power To execute a fair, just judgment, power will be displayed. Great power will be displayed in making all the secrets of men's hearts made known. Great power will be displayed in the ability of God to know every detail and to give a just judgment and to make no errors. And great power, awful power, will be displayed and taking people who would resist God with every fiber of their being and casting them into hell. You do not get the picture in the scriptures of people walking like lambs into hell. People will not want to enter into the abyss. There will be a horrible display of power in gathering together all of the obstinate and all of the fearful and all of the shrieking and forcing them into the places of everlasting punishment. There will be an awful display of power in eon after eon after eon of God exercising wrath upon those people. And there will be a terrible exercise of power in God sustaining them in the midst of his wrath forever and forever and forever. It is a horrible thing to think that God's power will energize the punishment of the damned forever. His power will sustain them and his power will crush them forever and forever and forever. What has God chosen to do with these who are fit for destruction? Well, number one, He's determined to show His wrath to them. Number two, He's determined to show His power upon them. And perhaps that should not be limited only to eternal punishment, as I have been saying. In verse 17, it says that God was determined to show His power in reference to Pharaoh. that God brought his wrath and his power to bear upon Pharaoh. Perhaps some of the things that we see of the upheaval in what used to be the communist world and those men being brought down and some of them being killed and some of them being brought to justice, perhaps that is some expression of God exercising his power to bring judgment and wrath upon those who are fit for destruction, just like he did with Pharaoh in this life. But the point is, what does Paul say that God's going to do to these people? Number one, display His wrath. Number two, display His power. And the third thing, it says, in reference to these people that are fit for destruction, that God has endured them, does endure them, with much longsuffering. God does endure them with much longsuffering. You are familiar with the passage in Romans chapter 2, verse 4 and following, where Paul asks that question in Romans chapter 2, verse 4. Or despises thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? God deals with these people that are fit for destruction. God deals with these people that he has given over to their passions. God deals with them mercifully. He keeps showing them kindness and goodness. He keeps doing things designed to lead them to repentance. He endures them, He endures them, and He endures them. That's what God does with those who are fit for destruction. He is determined to pour His wrath upon them. He is determined to display His power in them, and He bears with them. He endures them with much long-suffering. Now, the question that Paul raises is, what if God chooses to do this? What if God does this? What moral fault can be found in God if he does this? What will you say against these things? These people are fit for destruction. These people are the just objects of divine wrath. These people are the objects for the display of God's power. God has been patient with them. He has every right over them. He is treating them in accord with His moral precepts, and He is treating them in accord with what they desire. What can you say if God chooses to do this? In the court of moral arguments, where biblical righteousness is the standard. What can you say if God chooses to do this? What moral basis for objection could be found? if God chooses to do this. That's the intent of that expression. We must appreciate God does nothing inappropriate in the way he treats these vessels which are prepared for wrath. Now Paul goes on to say things about these vessels of mercy in verse 23. Romans chapter 9 and verse 23. Now, read again with me. Verse 23 is an incomplete sentence, and you have to supply something at the beginning of verse 23. Start in verse 22. What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction? And, and there's where you have to supply something because the sentence is incomplete. And it seems to me, along with the commentators that I believe that we would all most respect, that Paul is saying in verse 23 something in parallel to what he said in verse 22. He has said some things about the vessels of wrath. Now he's going to say in parallel some things about the vessels of mercy. And so it would be supplied this way, and, and this is supplied, what if God is willing, just like it said at the beginning of verse 22, and what if God is willing that he might make known the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy which he before prepared unto glory. Now again, let us very quickly look at how he describes these vessels of mercy, and then let us look at what he says he'll do to them. The description. These are people whom God prepared for glory. The above passage about the vessels of wrath being fit for destruction, that passage does not emphasize who made them fit. That passage simply emphasizes their state. They were fit for destruction. They should have been destroyed. This passage, though, emphasizes the agent. This passage emphasizes who makes these ones vessels of mercy. They were made ready for glory, the passage says. They were made ready for the glory of salvation, the glory of God. They were once not fit for glory. They were like all the rest in the lump. They were fit for destruction. They had sinned. They had rebelled. They had been given over. They were not fit for glory, but God made them fit for glory. They once hated God or perhaps were only indifferent to God. They were blind. They were morally polluted. They were fit only for destruction. But God took them. He took that lump that was fitted for destruction. He took that lump and made them fit for glory. Look, please. in Colossians chapter 1 where Paul makes a very parallel statement in more full terms. beginning to read in verse 9, For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray and make requests for you, that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing, bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God, strengthened with all power, according to the might of his glory, unto all patience and longsuffering with joy." Appreciate verse 12, giving thanks unto the Father who made us meet The Word is who made us qualified, who made us qualified to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, who delivered us out of the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins. Who has made us meet? Who has made us qualified? The whole point of the passage is that God has done things that make it appropriate for us to be in God's kingdom. God has done things that make us qualified, that make us pass the standards. What has he done? He has delivered us from the power of darkness. We are no longer enslaved to sin. He has translated us into the kingdom of his son. He has given us redemption. He has given us forgiveness. He is able to fill us with all knowledge and spiritual wisdom and make us walk worthily of the calling, bringing forth fruit. God has done all of that. And in so doing, he has made us suitable. He has made us fit. He has made us appropriate for the kingdom of God's dear son. It is right for us always to refer to ourselves as sinners redeemed by grace, because no matter what degrees of maturity we attain, we will always be sinners redeemed by grace. But it is not right to say that disparagingly, because where God does a work of grace, he changes the person. They are not what they were. It is no longer appropriate to send them to destruction because they have been made meat for the kingdom of God. They have been prepared, according to the language in Romans nine, for glory. They have been wonderfully and radically changed. We are sinners saved, changed, not only forgiven by grace. When you come back to the passage in Romans chapter nine, what does God say that God does with these who are designated vessels of mercy? God makes them fit. He prepares them for glory. He converts them. He changes their nature. He gives them longings for righteousness. He makes them do righteousness. He makes them prepared. for glory. And then it says in the second place that in the future he will display the riches of his glory upon them. He prepared them for glory and he will, it says, display the riches of his glory upon them. And that is such a large, all-embracing phrase. It's hard to say what it means. In Ephesians 2, Paul speaks about the praise of the glory of God's grace. Well, that's a very large phrase too. He has prepared us for glory and he's going to display his glory upon us. He's going to display the glory of his grace to us. He's going to bring us into glory. He's going to enable us to partake of the glory of God. According to Romans chapter five and verse two, we will be in the fullest sense, partakers of the glory of God. Now come back. It would be easy to go off on that subject of what that is, to partake of the glory of God, but come back to Paul's point. What if God is willing to do this? Who's to challenge God if he's willing to do this? According to what moral standard, I'm sorry, according to God's moral standards, how could God be accused of any wrongdoing in doing this? If he takes men and women and children who are only fit for destruction, And he prepares them for glory by converting them, forgiving them, washing them, sanctifying them, making them holy people. If he does that and then commits himself to displaying more glory upon them in the ages to come, if he determines to do that, what moral precept has he violated? How is it inappropriate for God to do that? How is it inappropriate for God to be merciful? How is it inappropriate for God to show his wrath and his power to those who deserve destruction? How is that inappropriate? It's horrible, but how is it inappropriate? How is it inappropriate if God chooses to take similar people and prepare them for glory and show them grace? How can God be accused of something wrong? People that deserved wrath and wanted ungodliness, he gives it to them. And people that are in the same position, he chooses to take some and give them grace. How can that be wrong? What if God does this, Paul says? Can you sense something of the challenge in that? What if God does that? Who on the basis of any biblical morality can accuse God of fault if he does this? God is not at fault in the exercise of his rights over the creation, in taking some men and preparing them for wrath, and taking others and preparing them for mercy. The second objection to the doctrine of election is if God does all this, if God hardens whom he will and shows mercy to whom he will, how can he hold men accountable? Paul's response, number one, you're not allowed to ask that kind of a challenge to God. The first response is we must bow before the majesty of God and accept his statements without challenge. The second response is we must appreciate that God has absolute right over all of his creation. And the third response is, we must understand there is nothing unrighteous and there is nothing inappropriate. There's nothing that contradicts the so-called rights of human beings, of sinful human beings. There is nothing inappropriate or unrighteous in God choosing some for wrath and some for mercy. It's very difficult for me to know how to close and how to make application of the immense concepts that are set forth in this passage. And in a sense, much of what follows throughout the rest of these chapters is an ongoing use of these passages. And so more things will come up from time to time. But I would like to just read you the closing remarks that Charles Hodge makes in reference to this passage. And I admit to you that I read them to you because I I inwardly fall short of knowing how to apply such large things. He makes four applications. He says the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in the choice of the objects of his mercy should produce four things. Number one, it should produce the most profound humility in those who are called according to his purpose. They are constrained to say, not unto us, not unto us, but unto thy name be all the glory. We need to appreciate there was only one lump. God didn't have two bins of clay. In the one bin were real nice people. In the other bin were real bums. He took the real bums and sent them to destruction. He took the real nice people and gave them to Jesus. That's not true. There's only one lump. A lump of miserable people. A lump of people that didn't love God, didn't want God, wouldn't have chosen God. God took some handfuls out of that lump and prepared them for glory. And if, in the mercy and goodness of God, you're in that lump, if you sit here with faith tonight, if you sit here loving Jesus tonight, the only proper response is to be profoundly grateful and humbled before God that He decided, He chose, sovereignly, without constraint, unconditionally, to make you an object of mercy. The second response that God's sovereign choice and election should produce is the liveliest gratitude that we, though so unworthy, should from eternity have been selected as the objects in which God displays the riches of his glory. The first was it should produce the deepest humility. The second is it should produce the liveliest gratitude. It ought not to be a somber, dull thing that, oh, we're so grateful to God. There ought to be some lively excitement in this. We could have been left where we were. We were fit for destruction. You know, some of you are still left in that position. Some of you look at me with dull eyes. Some of you don't seem to care about your souls. Some of you seem to be happy with your petty sins, which keep you from Christ. Those in this room who are converted should look at that. And we should, with lively gratitude, bless God that we are not dead in our trespasses and sins, like some who sit right beside us in this room. Now, it should make us very sad for them, but we were there once and it should fill us with the liveliest gratitude. The third thing he says that the doctrine of sovereign election should produce is confidence and peace under all circumstances, because the purpose of God does not change. whom he has predestinated, them he also calls, them he also justifies, and them he also glorifies. The doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty in choosing whom he will should produce peace and confidence in our souls. If our salvation hung upon our faith or our stability or whatever, we would be tortured with the fears that that stability will erode, that faith will turn to doubt. But everything hangs upon God, and the God who chose us has promised to justify and finally to sanctify and glorify us. No matter how we stumble, no matter how we become discouraged, no matter how many times we fail and displease God and limp back to Him, no matter what, peace and security should pervade our souls because the God who chose us will finally save us. And the fourth product of the contemplation of God's sovereignty in election is this. It should produce diligence in the discharge of all duty to make our calling and election sure. That is, to make it evident to ourselves and to others that we are the called and chosen of God. We should ever remember that our election is to holiness. We should ever remember that our election is to holiness and, consequently, to live in sin is to invalidate every claim to be considered the elect of God. Hodge is simply refuting the common notion that if you believe in election, it will lead to moral complacency. Some people say that. If you believe in election and you think that you're one of the elect, that will take away all incentive. If you think that you're one of the elect, you'll just sit down and let on your moral posterior and do nothing. Just believing that I'm elect, I'll get to heaven. Hodge's point is correct. If we believe in the doctrine of God's sovereignty in election, and we understand that people are chosen unto holiness, not unto security, not unto complacency, but unto holiness. And if we also understand that the scriptures say we must give all diligence to make our calling and election sure. Then if we are among the elect, it will spur us to every diligence to do all things that lead to holiness, that we would demonstrate to ourselves and to others that indeed we are the elect of God. It should do that. You see, we should be proving to God's praise. We should be proving again and again and again by a holy life. We should be proving to ourselves and to others and to the world that we are the people of God. This doctrine should lead to humility, to lively gratitude, it should lead to confidence and peace, and it should lead to a diligent attempt to pursue holiness that we would be assured in our calling and in our election. May it please God that all of these things that may seem so academic, that these things would become vital to our Christian experience.