GENERAL SUMMARY OF THE DOCTRINE.
WE have thus endeavoured to show that the doctrine of universal
predestination--the foundation of the Calvinistic theology--is not
based upon the principle of the Divine wisdom, nor upon Divine
power, nor upon Divine foreknowledge, nor proved by the Scripture
texts advanced on its behalf. It is closely allied to Pantheism and
the fate of the Stoics. It shakes hands with Socialism, which
maintains that man can have no merit or demerit, that he could not
be otherwise than he has been and is (_Socialism_, by Owen). It is
the creed of the Mahometans. According to them every action in a
man's life has been written down in the _preserved tablets_, which
have been kept in the seventh heaven from all eternity. "No
accident," saith the Koran, "happeneth on the earth, or on your
persons, but the same was entered into the book of our decrees
before we created it. Verily this is easy with God: and this is
written lest ye immoderately grieve for the good which escapeth you,
or rejoice for that which happeneth unto you." They might fall in
battle, but it was so decreed, and at the resurrection they would
appear with their "wounds brilliant as vermilion, and odorous as
musk." Since the primary principle of Calvinism is a foundation
principle of Pantheism, Socialism, Stoicism, and Mahometanism,
Calvinists may well question whether they have not been building
upon the sand, instead of the eternal rock of immutable truth.
In view of the doctrine we have advocated, viz., that God has not
ordained whatsoever comes to pass, but has left each man to be the
arbiter of his own fate, we can see the propriety of the
exhortation, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against
you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and
cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may
live" (Deut. xxx. 19). It is the same still. God has provided a
Saviour for all, and, therefore, for each. It is the province of the
Holy Spirit to testify respecting Christ,--that He is able to save
the very worst, and as willing as He is able. Each may choose to
neglect this Saviour, or reject Him by choosing some other ground;
or may choose Him as his only refuge. This choice has to be made by
each man himself. No man can choose for another any more than he can
eat or drink for another. It belongs entirely to each to do this. To
choose Him is to choose life. To neglect or reject Him is to choose
--death. Which will it be? The principle--viz., of choice, runs
through life. Your happiness here depends on it in numberless
instances. It is recognised everywhere in the Bible. Its
exhortations summed up are expressed thus--"Turn ye, turn ye, why
will you die?" It thus rests with you, and with you only--after what
God has done for you--whether you shall live or die.
PART II.--REPROBATION.
CHAPTER I.
THE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION STATED.
THE subjects of reprobation and election are so closely connected
that they might be considered in one chapter. Indeed, so close is
the connection, that certain verses supposed to prove one of them,
are also adduced to prove the other, as--"Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated." It is, however, stoutly maintained that election
is scriptural, whilst reprobation is repudiated. It is important to
have clear ideas on the subject.
What, then, are we to understand by the doctrine of reprobation? The
question is not whether those dying in impenitency shall be
subjected to suffering; for this is held by the opponents of
Calvinism as well as by Calvinists themselves. The question is this,
Is it true that God in a past eternity foreordained millions of men
to endless misery, that to this end they were born, and to this end
they must go? John Calvin held that it was so. He says, "All are not
created on equal terms, but some are foreordained to eternal life,
others to eternal damnation; and accordingly as each has been
created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been
predestinated to life or to death." He says, again, "If we cannot
assign any reason for God's bestowing mercy on His people, but just
that it so pleases Him, neither can we have any reason for His
reprobating others; but His will. When God is said to visit in
mercy, or to harden whom He will, men are reminded that they are not
to seek for any cause beyond His will." He says, again, "The human
mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain its petulance,
but boils and rages, as if aroused by the sound of a trumpet. Many,
professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge,
admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated.
This they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no
election without its opposite--reprobation. Those, therefore, whom
God passes by He reprobates, and that for no other cause but because
He is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which He
predestines to His children". (_Inst_., b. iii.). Zanchius held--"It
was therefore the first thing which God determined concerning them
from eternity--namely, the ordination of certain men to everlasting
destruction" (_Thesis de Reprob_.). Elnathan Parr maintained, "If a
man be reprobated he shall certainly be damned, do what he can"
(_Grounds of Divinity_). Maccovius says that "God has indeed decreed
to damn some men eternally, and on this account He has ordained them
to sin but each sins on his own account, and freely." To like
purpose we might quote Maloratus, Amandus Pollanus, John Norton,
John Brown of Wamphray, Piscator, &c. (_Vide Old Gospel_, &c.,
Young, Edin.) Calvin and his followers did not mince the matter, as
these extracts clearly show.
The Lambeth Articles expressed the same ideas as above. Article
First says, "God hath from eternity predestinated certain persons to
life, and hath reprobated certain persons to death." Article Third
runs thus, "The predestinate are a predeterminate and certain
number, which can neither be lessened nor increased." Article Ninth
has these words, "It is not in the will or power of every man to be
saved." The Lambeth Articles were drawn up as expressing the sense
of the Church of England, or, rather, a section of it. They were
merely declaratory, and recommended to the students of Cambridge,
where a controversy had arisen regarding grace. They received the
sanction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and
a few others.
The Synod of Dort, as intimated, was held in 1618, and had divines
in it from Switzerland, Hesse, the Palatinate, Bremen, England, and
Scotland. Its first article runs thus: "That God by an absolute
decree had elected to salvation a very small number of men, without
any regard to their faith or obedience whatsoever; and secluded from
saving grace all the rest of mankind, and appointed them by the same
decree to eternal damnation, without any regard to their infidelity
or impenitency" (Tom., p. 567). The Synods of Dort and Arles
declared that if they knew the reprobates, they would not, by
Austin's advice, pray for them any more than they would for the
devils (_Old Gospel_, &c.) In this they were entirely consistent,
whatever else they might be.
The Westminster Assembly met in London in 1643. They drew up the
Confession of Faith and the Catechisms. In its third chapter the
Confession declares:--"By the decree of God, for the manifestation
of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting
life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and
men thus predestinated and foreordained are particularly and
unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite
that it can neither be increased nor diminished." The Confession of
Faith is the declared standard of doctrine of Presbyterians in
general in this country. It is proper to note this fact, because it
has been denied that whilst election is held reprobation is denied.
They are both in the Confession.
From what we have thus brought forward it appears evident that,
according to Calvin, reputed Calvinistic divines, the Lambeth
Articles, the Synod of Dort, and the Westminster Assembly, there is
a portion of the human family born under the decree of reprobation
--born--we do not like the expression, but it is the case--born to be
damned. It is a harsh expression, but the blame does not rest with
us, but with those who hold the doctrine.
CHAPTER II.
THE BIBLE USAGE OF THE WORD REPROBATION.
THE word "reprobation," according to the _Imperial Dictionary_,
means "to disallow," "not enduring proof or trial," "disallowed,"
"rejected." Gesenius says the Hebrew word (_maas_) primarily means
to reject, and is used (_a_.) of God rejecting a people or an
individual--Jer. vi. 30; vii. 29; xiv. 19; 1 Samuel xv. 23; (_b_.)
of men as rejecting God and His precepts--1 Samuel xv. 23. The Greek
word (_adokimos_) denotes, according to Robinson, "not approved,"
"rejected." In N. T. Metaph., "worthy of condemnation"--"reprobate"
--"useless"--"worthless." It occurs seven times in the English
translation; once in the Old Testament, and six times in the New. In
none of the instances, however, does it convey the idea of
unconditionalism.
_First passage_.--In Jer. vi. 30, it is written: "Reprobate silver
shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them." But why
were they rejected--reprobated? The answer is contained in the
context. It is there said, "They are all grievous revolters, walking
with slanders: they are brass and iron; they are all corrupters. The
bellows are burnt, the lead is consumed of the fire, the founder
melteth in vain; for the wicked are not plucked away." Everything
had been done to save them, and when all remedial agencies had
failed, they were declared to be rejected--reprobated.
The _second_ passage is in Rom. i. 28: "And even as they did not
like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a
reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." Here,
again, we have reprobation; but then they were given over to this
state on the ground that they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge. The reprobation was therefore conditional, and not
Calvinistic.
The _third_ passage is in 2 Cor. xiii. 5: "Know ye not your own
selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates."
Grotius explains _adokimoi_--"reprobates," thus: "Christians in name
only and not in deed." Dr. Hamond as "steeped and hardened."
Vorstius, "wicked, and unfit for the faith." Dickson, "as unworthy
of the name of Christian." Calvin, "unless you by your crimes have
cast off Christ" (Whitby, _ad loc_.) Doddridge paraphrases the
passage thus: "Are ye not sensible that Jesus Christ is dwelling in
you by the sanctifying and transforming influences of His spirit,
unless ye are mere nominal Christians, and such as, whatever your
gifts be, will finally be disapproved and rejected as reprobate
silver that will not stand the touch?" The reprobation again implied
a condition, and was non-Calvinistic.
The _fourth_ passage is as follows:--"But I trust that ye shall know
that we are not reprobates" (2 Cor. xiii. 6). Barnes's paraphrase of
the text is this: "Whatever may be the result of the examination of
yourselves, I trust (_Gr_., I hope) you will not find us false, and
to be rejected; that is, I trust you will find in me evidence that I
am commissioned by the Lord Jesus to be His apostle." There is
nothing in the verse to favour unconditional reprobation.
The _fifth_ passage runs thus: "Now I pray God that ye do no evil;
not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which
is honest, though we be as reprobates" (2 Cor. xiii. 7). The meaning
is plain enough. Paul desired that his readers should live pure and
honourable lives, although he and these associated with him should
be rejected as bad silver is rejected--reputed silver that cannot
stand the tests. The verse gives no countenance to Calvinistic
reprobation.
The _sixth_ passage is this: "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood
Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds,
reprobate concerning the faith" (2 Tim. iii. 8). But here again we
have the moral state of those men brought before us--they "resisted
the truth," and were men of corrupt minds. They could not stand the
test of examination, and were rejected or disallowed as members of
the Christian community. There is no unconditionalism here:
The _seventh_ text is as follows: "They profess that they know God;
but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and
unto every good work reprobate" (Titus i. 16). The passage,
according to all the ancient commentators who write upon it, refers
to the Jews (Whitby). Its meaning is finely hit off by Doddridge,
who; paraphrasing the words, says, "And with respect to every good
work disapproved and condemned when brought to the standard of God's
word, though they are the first to judge and condemn others." They
had been tried in the balance and found wanting. They were so
utterly bad that in view of good works they were of no account. The
reprobation was conditional.
The Greek word (_adokimos_) is used in Heb. vi. 8, but is translated
"rejected." It has reference to ground. But why was the ground
rejected, or reprobated? Unconditionally? Nay, but because it
yielded, instead of good fruit, "briers and thorns." The human mind
is like a field, and God is the husbandman. He uses various methods
to produce the fruits of righteousness, and when these fail,
judgment is pronounced against the mind. And is not this just?
As far, therefore, as the word is concerned, there is not the most
distant support given to the doctrine of an eternal decree
foredooming millions of men to hopeless misery. It is something
gained when we find this to be the case.
On what, then, does the doctrine rest, if not upon the use of the
word? It is supposed to rest upon the sovereignty of God, and
certain passages of Scripture, although the word "reprobate" is not
found in them.
The term sovereign is from the French "sovereign," and that again
from the Latin "supernus." It means supreme in power, supreme to all
others. That God occupies this position will not be questioned by
any one who believes in Him. The matter, therefore, is not one of
sovereignty, or whether God is 'the only' absolute Sovereign in the
universe. This is admitted. The question is this--what has God, in
the exercise of His sovereignty, chosen to do? To adduce proofs in
its support is beside the point, since we hold it as firmly as our
opponents in this controversy. Nebuchadnezzar uttered a great truth
when he said that God "doeth according to His will in the army of
heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth." But what is His
will? Is man governed by the law of necessity as storms are, and as
waters are? These creatures do as God desires; is it so as regards
man? The condemnation that each passes on himself is the best
answer. Man may transgress, but God by virtue of His absolute
sovereignty has appointed the penalty, and no one can reverse His
decree.
CHAPTER III.
PROOF TEXTS FOR CALVINISTIC REPROBATION EXAMINED.
PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.--There are certain passages of the Bible
supposed to teach the doctrine of Calvinistic reprobation, and it
may be well to examine their meaning.
REPROBATION AND THE EVIL DAY.--In Proverbs xvi. 4, it is written:
"The Lord hath made all things for Himself, even the wicked for the
day of evil." This passage is supposed to teach the doctrine of
Calvin, that some men have been reprobated from eternity, and come
into existence with the doom of death eternal on their brow. The
first part of the verse presents no difficulty. It brings before us
the idea that God Himself is the great object of creation. It is
proper that this should be so. He is the greatest and the best of
beings, and to have created for a lesser object than Himself would
not have been conformable to the dictate of the reason. It is the
second part of the verse which is supposed to teach the doctrine of
eternal and unconditional reprobation. Calvin's idea of the passage
is that the wicked were created for "certain death that His name
(God's) may be glorified in their destruction." Let us suppose this
to be the meaning--what then? The word "glory" in Hebrew means
"beauty," "honour," "adornment." All around us lies the beautiful
--the earth with her carpet of flowers--and the overarching skies
--the sun, the moon, and the stars, are all beautiful.
"Oh, if so much beauty doth reveal
Itself in every vein of life and motion,
How beautiful must be the source itself,
The ever bright one."--TEGNER.
But there is a moral beauty in God. It lies in the supreme moral
excellence of His character; in His holiness, in His love, in His
truthfulness, in His patience, in His gentleness, in His mercy.
These attributes existing in God in the highest perfection,
constitute the glory of the Most High. "Beauty and kindness go
together" saith the poet; but is there any kindness in creating men
for the purpose of making them miserable for ever? For ourselves we
see no beauty, no glory in this--but the reverse. We regard it as a
libel upon the character of the ever blessed God.
The meaning of the passage is simple enough. God hath appointed good
for the righteous and evil for the wicked. Though hand join in hand
the wicked shall not go unpunished. One version of the passage is,
"Jehovah hath made all things to answer each other, even the day of
calamities for the wicked" (Davidson's _Commentary_). In Collins'
_Critical Commentary_ it is explained thus: "For Himself or for its
answer or purpose . . . . Sin and suffering answer to each other,
are indissolubly united" (_ad loc_). Thus interpreted, there is
nothing in the passage to create difficulty.
John xii. 37, 41, reads thus: "But though He had done so many
miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him: that the saying
of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who
hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been
revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias said
again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that
they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their
heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said
Esaias when he saw His glory, and spake of Him." Calvin held that
John, "citing this prophecy (of Isaiah), declares that the Jews
could not believe because this curse of God was upon them." The
first portion of the quotation is from Isaiah liii. 1, "who hath
believed our report?" &c. The question would imply that
comparatively few had at first responded to the Gospel invitation.
The larger portion of the passage is from Isaiah vi. It is as
follows: "Go ye, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but
understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart
of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and
understand with their hearts, and convert, and be healed" (vers. 9,
10). The passage is quoted by Matthew (xiii. 14, 15). Dr. Randolph,
as quoted by Horne, says on this passage, "This quotation is taken
almost verbatim from the Septuagint. In the Hebrew the sense is
obscured by false pointing. If instead of reading it in the
imperative mood, we read it in the indicative mood, the sense will
be, 'Ye shall hear, but not understand; and ye shall see, but not
perceive. This people hath made their heart fat, and hath made their
ears heavy, and shut their eyes,' &c., which agrees in _sense_ with
the evangelist and with the Septuagint, as well as with the Syriac
and Arabic versions, but not with the Latin Vulgate. We have the
same quotation, word for word, in Acts xxviii. 26. Mark and Luke
refer to the same prophecy, but quote it only in part." The Hebrew
vowel points which make the passage in Isaiah to be read in the
imperative mood were only introduced some 700 years after the birth
of Christ (Gesenius).
Read in this light the passage gives no support to the doctrine
sought to be fastened on it. The oracle was originally applied to
the Jews living in the time of Isaiah. They were then exceedingly
depraved; and the evangelist found that the words were applicable to
the Jews living in the time of Christ. Horne, writing on
"accommodation," observes, "It was a familiar idiom of the Jews when
quoting the writings of the Old Testament to say that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by such and such a prophet, not intending
it to be understood that such a particular passage in one of the
sacred books was ever designed to be a real prediction of what they
were then relating, but signifying only that the words of the Old
Testament might be properly adopted to express their meaning and
illustrate their ideas" (_Intro_., Vol. II.) "The apostles," he
adds, "who were Jews by birth, and spoke in the Jewish idiom,
frequently thus cite the Old Testament, intending no more by this
mode of speaking than that the words of such an ancient writer might
with equal propriety be adopted to characterise any similar
occurrence which happened in their times. The formula, 'That it
might be fulfilled,' does not therefore differ in signification from
the phrase, 'then was fulfilled,' applied in the following citation
in Matt. ii. 17, 18, from Jer. xxxi. 15, 17, to the massacre of the
infants in Bethlehem. They are a beautiful quotation, and not a
prediction, of what then happened, and are therefore applied to the
massacre of the infants, according not to their original and
historical meaning, but according to Jewish phraseology (_Vide_
Kitto, Art. Accom.) The principle of accommodation clears away all
difficulty. It is also in harmony with the context, as applied in
John. Christ exhorted those around Him to believe in the light, that
they might be the children of the light. But how could He exhort
them to believe in the light, if He knew that the Divine Father had
rendered their doing so an impossibility? Would you ask a man to
walk who had no legs? to look, if he had no eyes? Underlying the
exhortation to walk in the light lay the idea that they were able to
perform it. It has been said that although we have lost the power to
obey, God has not lost the power to command. Dr. Thomas Reid meets
this notion thus: "Suppose a man employed in the navy of his
country, and, longing for the ease of a public hospital as an
invalid, to cut off his fingers so as to disable him from doing the
duty of a sailor; he is guilty of a great crime, but after he has
been punished according to the demerit of his crime, will his
captain insist that he shall do the duty of a sailor? Will he
command him to go aloft when it is impossible for him to do it, and
punish him as guilty of disobedience? Surely if there be any such
thing as justice and injustice, this would be unjust and wanton
cruelty" (Hamilton's Reid, p. 621).
Yet whilst there is no decree dooming men to hardness of heart or
moral blindness, this state may be reached. Many are progressing
towards it, many are now in it. They have turned a deaf ear to the
cry of mercy, and are like the ground that has been often rained
upon, but brought out only briers and thorns. The difficulty of the
return of such does not lie with God, but in the habit of evil
contracted and persisted in by the wrong-doers. God desires the
salvation of all men, and has made the way open for all by the
propitiation of Christ.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.--The apostle of the Gentiles is supposed
to have clearly established, in this epistle, the doctrine that some
are born to be saved, and others born to be lost. The ninth chapter
especially has been the great storehouse of arguments for such as
hold this view. The strong-minded and the weak-kneed have all
resorted thither. They entrench themselves behind such passages as,
"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated;" "Hath not the potter
power over the clay?" and think, by repeating them, that they have
settled the controversy.
JACOB AND ESAU.--We shall consider the proof texts in this chapter
under the form of inquiry, and answer. Inquirer: "But does not the
passage 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (verse 13),
prove that the man Jacob was elected to eternal live, and the man
Esau reprobated or doomed to eternal death?" Answer--Far from it, as
we shall soon see. The passage is a quotation from Malachi i. 2, 3.
If you look at the context of the quotation you will see that the
prophet is speaking of the _people_ "Jacob" and the people "Esau,"
or the Edomites. It is of the utmost moment to see this, as it has a
most important bearing upon the controversy. The fourth and fifth
verses read thus:--"Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we
will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of
hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call
them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the
Lord hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye
shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel."
The plural pronouns used, "we," "us," "ye," "they," and the term
"people," prove that the prophet was speaking, not of the man
"Jacob," nor of the man "Esau," but of the respective peoples which
had descended from them. Look now at the word "loved." It has been
taken to mean God's electing love. But if this were so, then it will
follow that all the Jewish people would be saved. And if so, why was
it that Paul was so distressed about them, as he says, in the first
part of the chapter, that he was? He had great "heaviness and
continual sorrow" regarding the spiritual state of his countrymen;
but if they were unconditionally elected to eternal life, then Paul
was certainly carrying a useless burden. The "love" spoken of was
representative of God's kindness in bestowing upon the people Jacob
the privilege of being the Messianic people. The word "hated" will
thus signify, as the opposite of "loved," that the people Esau might
be said (from a certain standpoint) to be "hated;" that is, "less
loved" in comparison with the favour bestowed upon the people Jacob.
This meaning is in harmony with Hebrew idiom. The words "loved" and
"hated" are used in a relative sense. Christ says, "If any man come
to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,
and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be
my disciple" (Luke xiv. 26). This passage throws an important light
on the subject. No one will contend that Christ meant that we should
hate our parents. He simply brings before us this truth, that we
were to love Him above all relatives; but the use of the term "hate"
by Him takes it out of the category of the absolute, and places it
in the relative. And this must be its meaning as used by Paul. If
not, if it means that the race of Esau has been reprobated, then
there is no Gospel for them, and Christ's command to preach the
Gospel to every creature must be limited. To send a missionary to
the Arabs would be absurd if this doctrine is true. Thank God it is
not so.
The Jews took up the position that they must be saved; that they did
not need the Gospel; that being Abraham's seed they could not
possibly be damned. Paul felt deeply grieved with respect to the
position they occupied, and sought to dislodge them from it. "As to
the fine logic of his argument, bear in mind that he has been
proving in the preceding context that the lineal descent of the Jews
from the patriarch Abraham did not, as they fancied it did, make
them curse-proof for eternity. He proves this in the sixth, seventh,
eighth, and ninth verses . . . by showing that the Ishmaelites could
boast of a descent as lineal and patriarchal as theirs, and yet it
did not suffice to instal them in the medium Messianic privilege of
being Abraham's favoured children for time. By showing this, he
leaves us to draw the natural inference that the lineal descent
which could not instal Ishmaelites in the medium Messianic privilege
of being Abraham's highly-favoured children for time, could never be
sufficient to instal the infatuated Christ-rejecting Jews in the
peerless privilege of being Abraham's glory-inheriting and curse
-proof spiritual seed, his highly-favoured children for eternity. . . .
He then proceeds to prove again his already proved position, and
thus to clench his argument. This he does in the third section of
the chapter, which begins with the tenth verse and ends with the
thirteenth. . . . His proof consists of the fact that the Edomites
were as purely descended from Abraham through Isaac, as were the
Israelites; and yet, as is manifest at once from the declaration
made to Rebecca, 'the greater people shall be inferior to the
lesser,' and from the stronger statement made to the Israelites
themselves by God in Malachi, 'the people Jacob have I loved, but
the people Esau have I hated,'--this pure-lineal patriarchal descent
of the Rebecca-born Edomites was not sufficient to elevate them to
the enjoyment of the medium privilege of Abraham's Messianic
children. This being the case, it was scarcely short of perfect
madness for the Israelites to suppose that _their_ pure descent from
Abraham would suffice to constitute them his glory-inheriting and
curse-proof spiritual children, his highly-favoured seed for
eternity. Such is the fine and matchless logic of the apostle's
argumentation" (Morison, _Romans IX_.).
The interpretation thus given makes the apostle to be consistent
with himself, and in harmony with the "analogy of faith." The
Calvinistic interpretation makes the apostle inconsistent with
himself, and the command to preach the Gospel to every creature--a
nullity.
MERCY ON WHOM HE WILL.--_Inquirer_,--"But did not God claim the
right to extend mercy to whom He pleased, and to withhold it from
whom He pleased?"
_Answer_,--It is even so. Paul says, "For He saith to Moses, I will
have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on
whom I will have compassion" (Rom. ix. 15). The quotation is from
Exodus xxxiii. 19. The Israelites had committed the sin of making
the golden calf, and were threatened with destruction; but God was
entreated not to destroy them utterly, and Moses was assured that
God would extend mercy as He should see fit. The quotation has a
bearing upon the position of the Jews and Paul's argument. They were
filled with self-sufficiency and pride, and in great danger. In the
reply to Moses, God claimed the right of extending mercy as He
pleased, and would not allow Moses to interfere with His
prerogative. The Jews were reminded by the quotation that God had a
right to say on what terms He would have mercy upon sinners. He does
not state the principle after the quotation, but does so in verses
30-33 of this chapter. He extends mercy to those who believe in
Jesus:
PHARAOH.--_Inquirer_,--"But what do you make of Pharaoh? Was he not
a typical illustration of the unconditionally reprobated?"
_Answer_,--It is thought so. The apostle refers to the wicked king
in the seventeenth verse. His case was analogous to that occupied by
the Jews. He had been raised up from a sick bed, treated most
graciously, but became hardened under the influence of mercy, and
was at last destroyed. The Jews had also been very generously dealt
with, but instead of yielding were becoming indurated, and unless
they repented, would, as Pharaoh was, be destroyed. It is said that
God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and also that He hardened his own
heart. Both statements are true, but looked at from different
standpoints. God softens or hardens human hearts as they keep the
mind in truth or falsehood.
THE POTTER AND THE CLAY.--_Inquirer_,--"But what of the potter and
the clay, verse twenty-one?"
_Answer_,--The question discussed in the ninth of the Romans is a
question of Divine sovereignty, or God's right to appoint the
destinies of men after their moral probation is over. The potter
claimed the right to say what he should do in respect of the vessels
which he had made. Should one become marred in his hands, he makes
it into a vessel of dishonour or inferiority. If not, if it turned
out as he wished it, then it occupied the position of a vessel of
honour. The illustration came with crushing power against the Jews.
The attitude of hostility which they then occupied was that of being
marred in the hands of God, and He claimed the right of appointing
them their destiny. If they refused the Saviour whom Paul preached,
if they continued morally unregenerated, then the mere fact of being
Abraham's seed would not save them. As regards their fate hereafter,
they would be as clay in the hands of the potter.
We have thus seen that those passages so much relied on have really
no bearing upon reprobation or predestination. They refer to another
and distinct question--namely, that of SOVEREIGNTY. Had God a RIGHT
to select the Jacobites as the Messianic people instead of the
Edomites? The Jews would not dispute this. But had He a right to
extend mercy as He saw fit? Had He a right to destroy Pharaoh when
he refused to yield? Had He a right to deal with the destinies of
men as He judged right? If He had, then the Jews had not a foot to
stand upon in their absurd contention, that because they had
descended from Abraham they must needs be saved. According to Paul's
theology, God, in the exercise of sovereignty, had appointed faith
as the condition of salvation, and if they refused to comply with
the condition, then, as the Israelites were destroyed in the
wilderness for lack of faith, as Pharaoh was destroyed in the sea
when he refused obedience, and as the potter assigned an inferior
position to the marred vessel, so would the Divine Ruler visit the
Jews with evil if they refused to accept of Christ.
There is nothing in this ninth chapter to frighten any one. The Jew
expected to be saved by works (see vers. 30-33), and on the ground
of his descent from Abraham. The apostle sweeps both of these away,
and presents Christ as the only ground for them. And the ground that
was for them is for all.
THE STONE OF STUMBLING.--In 1 Peter ii. 8 it is written: "And a
stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which
stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were
appointed." This text is supposed to teach that the parties spoken
of were appointed to be disobedient. At the first glance it would
seem to teach this. But the principle of interpretation to which we
have referred--namely, that when the mere grammatical construction
of a passage is clearly absurd, it is clear it cannot be the true
one, and we must look for another meaning. Now, if the "whereunto"
refers to the "disobedient," how could they be charged with
disobedience if they were just doing what they were appointed to do?
If Christ was put before those unbelievers for the purpose of making
them disobey, then would not this be to put a stumbling-block in
their way? Surely such conduct is infinitely the opposite of a good
God.
Another translation of the passage, including verse 7, is this:
--"Unto you, therefore, who believe He is precious; but unto those who
disbelieve, the stone which the builders disallowed has become the
head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence.
They, disbelieving the word, stumble--that is, fall or perish,
whereunto also they were appointed." That is, unbelievers are
appointed to perish if they continue unbelievers. Horne says, "Hence
it is evident that 1 Peter ii. 8 is not that God ordained them to
disobedience (for in that case their obedience would have been
impossible, and their disobedience no sin), but that God, the
righteous Judge of all the earth, had appointed or decreed that
destruction and eternal perdition should be the punishment of such
disbelieving persons who willingly reject all the evidences that
Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the Saviour of the world. The mode of
pointing above adopted is that proposed by Drs. John Taylor,
Doddridge, and Macknight, and recognised by Greisbach in his
_Critical Edition of the New Testament_, and is manifestly required
by the context" (Vol. IV., p. 398). The passage as thus explained
has no difficulty. Blessings come to those believing, evil to those
disbelieving.
FOREORDAINED TO CONDEMNATION.--In Jude, verse 4, it is written thus:
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were of old
foreordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of
our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our
Lord Jesus Christ." The passage contains the reason why the apostle
had urged the Christians to contend earnestly for the faith once
delivered to the saints. The term "ordained" in the passage means
"to write before," or "aforetime," "to post up publicly in writing."
Certain men of bad character had got into the church, but the
condemnation of such had been intimated before. Macknight says,
"Jude means that these wicked teachers had their punishment before
written--that is, foretold in what is written concerning the wicked
Sodomites and rebellious Israelites, whose crimes were the same with
theirs." To write regarding certain characters, and intimating their
punishment, is a widely different thing from unconditional
reprobation.
The passages thus examined are the principal ones brought forward to
prove that some men are foreordained to everlasting ruin. We do not
think they prove this, and we reject the doctrine.
CHAPTER IV.
OBJECTIONS TO CALVINISTIC REPROBATION.
_In the first place_, we object to it because it impeaches the
Divine Fatherhood. God sustains to the human family the relation of
a Father. He is the Creator of the sun and stars, but not their
father. Fatherhood carries in it two ideas,--creation and similarity
of nature. He is the Creator of the sun and stars, but they do not
possess a nature like His. But in man there is a Divine likeness, an
epitome of God. There is the power of thought, will, and feeling. In
this broad view every man is a son of God. He has been created by
Him, and, so far, is like Him. It is very true that man has rebelled
and ignores the relationship. But denial of relationship does not
abolish it. A son may deny his own father, and claim another to be
so; and men have denied God, and acted as the children of the devil.
But although they have rebelled, He earnestly remembers them. They
are prodigals, but they are His prodigals. He made them, and He
feels for them. A good father feels for all his children. Could we
call a father a good father who foreordains that one-half of his
offspring should be burned? But this is the doctrine of Calvinistic
reprobation! It cannot stand in the light of the parable of the
prodigal son. As that father in that parable felt to his prodigal
child, so God _feels_ to every one of His prodigals.
We reject this doctrine of unconditional reprobation,
_In the second place_, because it impeaches the Divine _sincerity_.
Sincerity is descriptive of the harmony that exists between the
feelings of the heart and the utterances of the lips.
"Sincerity,
The first of virtues, let no mortal leave
Thy onward path, although the earth should gape,
And from the gulph of hell destruction cry
To take dissimulation's winding way."
An insincere man, who professes one thing whilst he feels another,
is universally despised. Now, when I take up the Bible, what do I
find? I find it full of invitations to all men to come and be saved.
"Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and be saved." "Ho, every
one that thirsteth; come ye to the waters." "Turn ye, turn ye, why
will you die?" Now, these invitations are addressed to all alike.
Their value turns on this--does God _mean_ what He says? Not so if
Calvinistic reprobation be true. But if He does mean what He says
--that He really wishes all saved--then these utterances reveal the
great heart of God as it gathers round every human being; and the
Calvinistic dogma of unconditional reprobation is a huge lie, that
should be thrown back to the place whence it came.
CHAPTER V.
SUMMARY OF THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION.
THERE is a doctrine of reprobation taught in the Bible. The word, as
we have seen, is several times used in the sacred writings. It
means, according to classic Greek, "not standing the test,"
"spurious, base, properly (1.) of coin, (2.) of persons," "ignoble,
mean" (Liddell and Scott). In the Bible it signifies the same thing,
"disapproved," "rejected," "undiscerning," "void of judgment."
Cruden says, "This word among metallists is used to signify any
metal that will not undergo the trial, that betrays itself to be
adulterate or reprobate, and of a coarse alloy. . . . A reprobate
mind, that is, a mind hardened in wickedness, and so stupid as not
to discern between good and evil." We are quite familiar with the
idea in everyday life. Ships, horses, land, governments,
individuals, are being constantly subjected to trial, and, being
found wanting, are rejected, _reprobated_. And what thus takes place
in the lower plane of things, takes place in the sphere of morals.
Men are now on trial for eternity. If they act as God wishes them,
they shall walk with him in white, and sit down at the marriage
-supper of the Lamb; but if not, then they will be rejected. The
great principle is neither more nor less than this--namely, that men
shall reap as they sowed. The principle is just. If men sow nettle
-seed or the seed of briers and thorns, is it not fair that they
should reap the fruit? The great principle, then, of the Bible is
this: "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the
land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured by the sword"
(Isaiah i. 19, 20).
It is a blessed thing, then, to know that on your head there is no
decree of unconditional reprobation. You may be saved. Your heavenly
Father wishes you saved, for He is "not willing that you should
perish" (2 Peter iii. 9); and He wishes "all men saved" (1 Timothy
ii. 4), and therefore you. He has done all He can for you. Will you
be saved? It rests with you to build only on Christ, and conform
your life after the pattern He has left.
PART III.--ELECTION.
CHAPTER I.
THEORIES OF CALVINISTIC ELECTION.
IF the question of Calvinistic reprobation is fitted to freeze the
blood and repel the mind from God, that of election, as represented
by the same school, is calculated to perplex and disturb the
inquirer after truth. At the noonday meeting in Glasgow, some time
ago, the prayers of those present were requested on behalf of a lady
who was troubled with the doctrine of election! She is, we believe,
a type of thousands. Poor woman! had she listened to the teachings
of Scripture instead of to those of man, she need have had no
trouble in the matter. Heaven's order is--"Believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved." In other words, believe that God
loves yourself, that Christ made an atonement for thy sin, and thou
shalt enter among the saved ones--or the elect.
There are four different theories regarding this subject:--
(1.) There is, _first_, the supralapsarian theory. Those who hold
this view are high Calvinists. According to this theory, God,
without any regard to the good or evil works of men, resolved by an
eternal decree, _supra lapsum_, antecedently to any knowledge of the
fall of Adam, and independent of it, to reject some and save others;
or, in other words, that God intended to glorify His justice in the
condemnation of some as well as His mercy in the salvation of
others, and for that end decreed that Adam should necessarily fall
(Buck).
(2.) The _second_ theory is designated _sublapsarianism_. According
to this view, God permitted the first man to fall into transgression
without absolutely predetermining his fall; or, that the decree of
predestination regards man as fallen by an abuse of that freedom
which Adam had. In other words, they regard the decrees of election
and reprobation as having reference to man in his fallen condition.
But according to this theory God loves only a portion of our race
--gives His Son to die for this only, and His converting grace to this
only. This portion is designated the elect.
(3.) A _third_ view is that God loves all men, has given His Son to
die for all men, but His saving grace is not given to all, but only
to some. This is modern Calvinism. "Election is then," says Dr.
Payne, "God's purpose to exert upon the minds of certain members of
the human family that spiritual and holy influence which will secure
their ultimate salvation" (_Lect. on Sovy_.)
(4.) A _fourth_ view is that God loves all men, that Christ died for
all men, and that converting grace is given to all men; and that
those of mankind who believe God's testimony regarding His Son,
become His elect or chosen ones. It is this view which we support.
The first three theories have points of difference and agreement,
but in their last analysis they come to this, that God does not wish
all men saved, only some--the elect.
CHAPTER II.
CALVINISTIC ELECTION INVOLVES POSITIVE REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SAVING
GRACE FOR THE LOST.
Dr. PAYNE, one of the subtlest and most accomplished of modern
Calvinists, argues strongly against the notion that the decree of
election involves the decree of reprobation. He says "I may
determine to relieve one out of twenty destitute families in my
neighbourhood, without positively determining not to relieve the
others; and if any one should ask me why others are not relieved, it
would be sufficient to reply that the giving of actual relief can
only spring from a determination to relieve, which in reference to
them does not exist. I may determine to take a book from the shelf,
without a positive determination not to take the others. There may,
indeed, be such a determination, but it is not necessarily implied
in the determination to take, and that is all that I am obliged to
prove--the other books may not even be thought of" (p. 40). Dr.
Payne was a very subtle dialectician, but we fear he has here
imposed upon himself in these illustrations. It is very true that
when I determine to select book "A" from my library, that book "B"
may not have been before my mind, and that I did not knowingly
determine to reject it. But it may have been, and if it was, then
the selection of "A" only, carried with it the rejection of "B." A
father sees his two children perishing in the waters. He jumps into
a boat, and reaches the scene of disaster. The children are sinking
from sheer exhaustion. He takes one into the boat, and returns to
shore. He could easily have saved the other, but did not, and he
tells the people this on landing, and that he must be simply judged
by his act of saving the rescued child, and that he is not to be
held as passing a decree of reprobation against the other. This, we
submit, is Dr. Payne's case. And will it bear looking at? I don't
think it. Dr. Payne adds, "This reasoning applies yet with greater
force to the great Eternal. There must exist in the mind of God a
determination to do what He actually does, because His actions are
the result of His volitions or determinations. But where God does
not act, where He does nothing, He determines nothing. It is
childish to suppose that because when He acts, there must be a
determination to act, when he does not act, there must be a
determination not to act, since a determination is necessary to a
state of action, but it surely is not necessary to a state of rest.
When Jehovah created the present universe, is it necessary to
suppose that there existed in His mind a positive determination not
to create any of the other possible universes which were present to
His views? Surely not." But we should say, Surely yes. If twenty
plans are presented to me, and I select one only, does not this
imply the rejection of the others? To the Divine mind there must
have been present the conception of many different kinds of worlds
than the one we are in; but of the possibles He chose the present
system as, all things considered, the best. Had there been a better
world and God did not make it, it must have been, according to the
optimists, either because God did not know of it, or was unable to
make it, or was unwilling,--all of which suppositions are either
incompatible with the omniscience, the omnipotence, or the goodness
of God. When the Creator selected the present system, He rejected
the "possibles" that might have been brought into being. I am
surprised that Dr. Payne should say that "determination" is not
necessary to a state of rest, or non-action. In thousands of
instances non-action--rest--is as much the result of volition as is
the most determined activity. The old divines used to divide sin
into acts of commission and omission. But in every sin of omission
there was action implied. If I do not help the needy when he crieth,
my non-help--my rest as regards aid--carries action in it
--determination. Dr. Payne again says, "When God determined to save
man, did that volition necessarily imply a positive determination
not to save the angels who kept not their first estate? No one, it
is presumed, Will answer in the affirmative. It implies, indeed,
that fallen angels were not included in the merciful purpose of God,
that there was no volition to save them; but no degree of ingenuity
can gather any conclusion beyond this from the facts of the case.
Why, then, should a positive determination, on the part of God, to
save some of the human family be supposed to imply of necessity a
counter and positive determination not to save the other members of
the family. Not to save men is not to act, it is just doing
nothing." But this is a very partial view of the case. What God did
in the case of the fallen angels we know nothing, and can affirm
nothing. But one may do nothing from one side of things, and do a
great deal from another. The priest and the Levite just did nothing
as far as helping the man was concerned. They rested, but in this
rest there was action which has covered them with obloquy for all
time. And if God has special influence at His disposal, and
determines to give it to some when He KNEW that others needed it as
much, and yet withholds it from them, His withholding it is as much
an act as the gift of it. He passed the non-elect over in applying
the influence, and no ingenuity can make it otherwise. But what He
does in time He determined to do in eternity--He determined to pass
them over. The illustration, therefore, of the book is worthless.
CHAPTER III.
CALVINISTIC ELECTION CONSIDERED IN REFERENCE TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF
GOD.
THE Divine sovereignty may be said to be the great foundation on
which the various shades of Calvinists take their stand. Here they
think they are as safe as if they stood on adamant. But assertion is
not argument, and he who asserts must prove.
Dr. Payne, in his preliminary lecture, discusses the question of
sovereignty, and endeavours to show that there is a difference
between supremacy and sovereignty. By the former punishment is
inflicted, by the latter good. If by sovereingty we mean that God
has absolute power to do whatsoever He pleases, then it will
comprehend the penalty of transgression, as well as the bestowment
of good. And this, as we apprehend, is the correct view of the case.
The Divine sovereignty being one of the main pillars of his system,
Dr. Payne gives various illustrations of it.
(1.) He instances the varied mental powers bestowed on men. He says,
"The mind of one man is marked by infantile weakness, of another by
a giant's strength. Nothing can elevate the former, nothing
permanently depress and overpower the latter. . . . In the case of
certain persons, the reasoning powers preponderate; in that of
others, the imagination. One man has little judgment, but an
exuberant fancy. Another has received the gift of a piercing
intellect; but if it be clear as a frosty night, it is also as cold.
A third is all impetuosity and fire, but it is a fire that scorches
and consumes everything that comes in its way. We can account for
these diversities by the principle of sovereignty alone. God
'divideth to every man severally as He will,' 'He giveth none
account of these matters,' 'He has a right to do what He will with
His own.'" Now, we do not question God's right to do what He will
with His own, but is this difference in mental calibre purely an
arbitrary act? Has brain, nerve, habit, nothing to do with the case?
and marriage? and education? Look at the biographies of prominent
men, and what do we find? Much depends evidently on the mother, as
in the case of Bacon, Erskine, Brougham, Cromwell, Canning, Byron.
The last-mentioned, writing of himself, says, that his "springs of
life were poisoned." His mother was a most passionate woman, and is
reported to have died of a fit of ill-nature at the sight of her
upholsterer's bills. The possession, then, of talent is not purely
arbitrary, but dependent on parentage, training, surroundings. There
was one question, indeed, which would have upset the whole of these
illustrations. It was this:--Whence comes insanity? It would never
be contended that God made some individuals insane and others sane,
by a merely arbitrary act. We find, in hundreds of instances, that
it is hereditary. One observer considers that six-sevenths of the
cases arise from this one cause. When, then, Dr. Payne quotes the
words, "He giveth none account of these things," we ask, is it so?
Has He not written His mind in the providence around us? Let certain
habits be encouraged, certain marriages entered into, and we require
no ghost to rise and tell us what the issue will be. God is telling
it to us every day. Departure on the part of parents from organic
laws entails misery, even to imbecility, on the children. We do not,
of course, deny that there are diversities among men; but we do deny
that these are purely arbitrary, like the gift of special grace, and
are therefore inept as illustrative of it.
(2.) Dr. Payne refers to providential blessing as illustrative of
sovereignty. He remarks, "That inequalities in the external
condition and circumstances exist, is manifest to all. The
questions, then, which force themselves upon our attention are
these: Do these inequalities originate with God, or with man?" He
asks, "Why one is born rich, and another poor? How is it to be
explained that two persons equal in talent and moral worth, obtain
such unequal measure of success? . . . The facts are entirely to be
resolved into Divine sovereignty. God is here exercising the right
of testimony, the bounties of His providence upon men, as it seems
good in His sight." It is very true that God is the source of all
the good in the world, but does He bestow it arbitrarily? If a man
neglects being _thrifty_, and lives beyond his means, his offspring
will inherit his poverty. There are economic as well as physical
laws in the world, and the non-observance of them descends unto the
third and fourth generations.
Dr. Payne appeals to health as illustrating his position. He says,
"It is impossible to account for the fact that of two individuals
equal in point of moral worth, one is the constant subject of bodily
infirmity, and the other the habitual possessor of health; but by
admitting that the hand of sovereignty confers upon the latter a
measure of good to which he has no claim" (p. 32). Doubtless, health
is a precious blessing; but is it given arbitrarily, like special
grace? Every one knows that its possession depends upon the
observance of laws, both in parents and offspring. It is the result
of complying with _conditions_, and there is no analogy between it
and the gift of special influence, which is entirely unconditional.
The chief illustration which Dr. Payne gives of Divine sovereignty
is, "The exertion of that holy influence upon the minds of the
chosen to salvation, by which they are brought to the knowledge and
belief of the Gospel, together with the Divine purpose to exert this
influence of which it is at once the index and the accomplishment"
(p. 33). We shall, however, endeavour to show that there is no such
irresistible influence as that for which the doctor contends. God is
a sovereign--the only absolute sovereign in existence; but He is
all-wise and all-good, not willing that any should perish.
We have thus examined those illustrations of Dr. Payne. They are a
kind of stock in trade of those who build their faith upon the
dogmas of Calvin.
CHAPTER IV.
CALVINISTIC ELECTION JUDGED BY THE REASON.
THE reason is supposed to affirm the doctrine that God has chosen
some men to get saving grace, and some men only. The question is
asked, "Is God the cause or author of man's salvation, or is man the
author of his own salvation?" It is maintained that God being
entirely the author of man's salvation, and that as man is brought
into a state of safety by infallible grace, and as God exercises
this grace, He must have determined to do it in eternity. The
doctrine of election is thus supposed to be affirmed by the reason.
But this is a very summary process of settling the question. How
stands the case? If by "salvation" is meant the _meritorious ground_
of salvation, then the question about its authorship is very single.
God is the sole author. He devised the plan, He wrought it out, and
He applies it to the hearts of men. To Him belongs all the glory.
But the question of merit being settled, there is another. It is
this--Are there _immeritorious_ grounds of salvation, and are men
required to be active in their moral regeneration? We must
distinguish between God's action and that of man. To confound them
is a grand mistake. In the Bible we find certain moral conditions
insisted upon in order to moral deliverance. There is a human side
in the matter. Are not men called upon "to look?" "to hear?" "to
come?" "to eat?" "to repent?" "to choose?" these terms represent
acts which men are called upon to perform. God does not "look" or
"choose" or "repent" for men. They must "choose" or die. The Spirit
comes to them, points out their sinful state, and places Christ
before them as their Saviour. When they give ear unto him, and put
their trust in Jesus, they become saved. They have no more merit in
the matter than a beggar has when he accepts alms, or a prisoner
when he accepts a pardon.
Salvation, then, as regards merit, is entirely of God, but men are
required to be active in their own deliverance. But why do some
yield, and some not? This question has often been asked, and it is
supposed that it stops all further argument. Let us look, however,
at the saved man. God has wrought out the remedy, the Holy Spirit
plies the sinner with motives for accepting the Saviour, and under
His persuasion he yields himself up unto God, and gives Him all the
glory of His salvation. Both scripturally and philosophically the
man's saved condition is accounted for. And can anything be said
against it? Look now at the unsaved man: why has he not believed? To
press for an answer to this question is just to press for an answer
to another--viz., why do men sin? Can any one give a reason for it
that will stand scrutiny? No one, not even God; and to demand an
answer in these circumstances is unphilosophical and impertinent.
The one believes through grace, and the other resists and dies. We
submit that this is a fair explanation of the case. The believer
acts in harmony with the reason, the unbeliever is guilty of sin;
and no reason can be given for sin.
The view thus advocated has been held as a denial of the Spirit's
work. If by the Spirit's work is understood a faith-necessitating
and will-overpowering work, then certainly the Spirit's work is thus
denied. But this is to cut before the point. There are, for
instance, different views of inspiration, as the inspiration of
direction, superintendency, elevation, and suggestion. Suppose I
were asked what theory of inspiration I held regarding any portion
of the Bible, and I answered that I had none, but took the
Scriptures as God's message to men, would it be fair argument to
assert that I denied inspiration? Manifestly not. But neither is it
fair to raise the cry that the Spirit's work is denied because a
particular theory regarding that work is denied, the theory, namely,
which makes it to be physical or mechanical.
Incorrect views of the Spirit's work have been entertained by
theologians in consequence of erroneous conceptions regarding the
degeneracy of human nature. Augustine held that man can do nothing
which will at all contribute to His spiritual recovery. He is like a
lump of clay, or a statue without life or activity. In consequence
of these views, he held that grace in its operation on the heart was
irresistible,--sometimes through the word, at other times without
it. Dr. Knapp says, "God does not act in such a way as to infringe
upon the free will of man, or to interfere with the use of his
powers" (Phil. ii. 12, 13). Consequently, God does not act on men
immediately, producing ideas in their souls without the preaching or
reading of the scriptures, or influencing their will in any other
way than by the understanding. Did God act in any other way than
through the understanding, he would operate miraculously and
irresistibly, and the practice of virtue under such an influence
would have no intrinsic worth; it would be compelled, and
consequently incapable of reward (_Theo_., p. 408). He says again,
"The doctrine of the Protestant church has always been that God does
not act immediately on the heart in conversion, or, in other words,
that He does not produce ideas in the understanding, and effects in
the will, by His absolute Divine power without the employment of
external means. This would be such an immediate conversion and
illumination as fanatics contend for, who regard their own
imaginations and thoughts as effects of the Spirit" (p. 400). If our
creed on this subject is to be based on the Bible, it leaves us in
no doubt upon the matter. In speaking of the new birth it is
written, "Of His own will begat He us by the word of truth, that we
should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures" (Jas. i. 18). Here
the truth is used as the medium in conversion, and not a syllable
about irresistible influence. The apostle Peter states the same
thing: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for
ever" (1 Peter i. 23). Our Lord, in explaining the parable of the
sower said--"The seed is the word of God," and seed, in order to
germination, must have an appropriate soil.
CALVINISTIC ELECTION UNCONDITIONAL:--The followers of Calvin,
however they differ among themselves regarding certain standpoints,
agree in this, that evangelical election is unconditional. The
Confession of Faith declares that election is "without any foresight
of faith or good works or perseverance in either of them, or any
other thing in the creature as conditions or causes moving Him (God)
thereunto" (_Confess_., Chap. III.) Dr. Payne says of the elect,
"They were not chosen to salvation on account of their foreseen
repentance, and faith, and obedience, for faith and repentance are
the fruit, not the root of predestination" (p. 47.) And again, "The
electing decree, which is unconditional" (p. 38).
The Bible has been appealed to as supporting this view, that
election is eternal and unconditional, and we shall consider certain
of the passages thus appealed to.
CHAPTER V.