Post by Admin on Oct 17, 2024 15:28:06 GMT -5
6. PREDESTINATION AND
FOREKNOWLEDGE
“Being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh
all things after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11).
It is of some importance that we should settle the real nature of these
two things, predestination and foreknowledge, to ascertain which of
the two is first. The question is, Does God fix a thing simply because
He foreknows it, or does He foreknow it because He has fixed it?
There are vague ideas in man’s mind at these points. It is well to
know the truth with distinctness. I answer, Predestination must be
the foundation of foreknowledge. God foreknows everything that
takes place because He has fixed it. In proof:
1. The opposite of this is an impossibility. To fix a thing is to make
that thing certain to come to pass, which, but for the fixing would not
have happened.... God knew all that might possibly have come to
pass had He let the world alone to act out its iniquity. In all the
infinity of possibilities, He saw that the thing He wanted was not to
be found. Seeing the end from the beginning, He saw that the thing
He desired would never come to pass unless brought into being by a
direct act of His own will. No other will would desire or could effect
that which He saw to be best, either in regard to persons or events.
The thing He wanted was not to be found among the possibilities,
but among the impossibilities, if matters were left to themselves, to
the operation of the usual laws. How, then shall that which is
impossible be rendered not only possible but certain? Evidently by
the direct interference of God! God having thus interfered and
arranged everything according to His wisdom, of necessity He must
know them to come to pass. In other words, He foreknows
everything because He has arranged everything. Everything is certain
in His foreknowledge because it is so in His arrangements.
Take the case of a saved sinner, such as Saul of Tarsus. In looking
forward from eternity, God saw that sinner. He saw him in his guilt
and sin. He saw him hastening away from Himself, He saw that if left
to himself, or to the usual laws of things, Paul would only go deeper
into sin and farther from Himself. He saw that in such a case his
salvation was impossible — that he never would believe and would
never repent and turn. This was all that mere foreknowledge could
tell. Foreknowledge alone can do nothing as to salvation. But here
predestination comes in. God forms a design to bring man to glory,
he is a “chosen vessel.” And having this design regarding him, He
resolves to put forth His power, He prearranges all His plans
concerning him, He fixes the day and the hour of his conversion, and
so He foreknows its certainty — because He has fore-arranged it.
Otherwise it could not have been known; nay, it would have been an
impossibility.
2. The opposite of this is an absurdity. What can be more absurd
than to fix a thing which I already know will come to pass whether I
fix it or not? This is truly imputing foolishness to God. It represents
Him as giving a solemn decree to fix a thing which is already certain.
As if the queen of this realm should decree that the sun should rise
tomorrow, because she knows that it will be the case, from the laws
of nature. Is it not a mockery of God? It makes Him thus to speak, “I
foreordain that a sinner shall be saved, because I foresee that he will
be saved.” Unless, then, we impute folly to God, and affirm that there
is nothing in the word predestination, we must admit that God must
foreordain before He foreknows, and that He knows everything just
because He has fore-arranged everything according to His own
infinite wisdom.
There are two arguments which appear to me quite conclusive. But
let us turn to Scripture. I do not need to again direct your attention
to the passages which were quoted previously. But note two
previously quoted, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel
and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have
crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). “For of a truth against Thy holy child
Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate,
with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
for to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to
be done” (Acts 4:27-28).
1. The language is very explicit and plain. It is the strongest that
could possibly have been used to denote foreordination. There is
nothing about it ambiguous or hard to be understood. To take it in
any other sense would be absurd. The doctrine may be inscrutable,
but the words are plain. And is the nature of the doctrine a reason for
refusing to take the words of God in their natural sense?
2. Admitting our views of foreordination to be true, could they have
been expressed in language different from this, or from that
employed in the Epistle to the Romans and Ephesians? Had we been
left to choose our words for setting forth our views, we could not
have desired any other than these. Can our opponents say the same?
Are these words the most appropriate for expressing their views?
3. This determinate counsel is said to have fixed certain events in
Christ’s history. Now, if some were fixed, we have reason to conclude
that all others also were. Yet in the life and death of Christ we see
nothing but what seemed outwardly to occur in the natural order of
events. It will certainly be conceded that the will of the Son of God
was free from first to last. Yet we learn that what He voluntarily did
and suffered was also predetermined by God. In His case there was
entire free will, yet entire preordination. What, then, becomes of the
objection to predestination, arising from its supposed interference
with the free will of moral agents? In Christ’s life and death we have
a series of preordained events, and at the same time a series of free
actions. And this is sufficient answer to the current objection. We
may not be able to reconcile these things, yet they stand palpably
before us.
4. This determinate counsel is said to have delivered up Christ into
the hands of men. Pilate and Herod, etc., are said to have done what
God’s hand and counsel had predetermined. Here is something still
more striking. The deeds of these wicked men are said to have come
to pass according to this counsel, yet these deeds are no less wicked,
and those men are no less responsible. Here, again, we have another
objection answered, or at least silenced. To reconcile things may be
difficult, yet the statement in this passage is plain. What pride and
folly, then, are there in the questions and cavils which we so often
hear in connection with this doctrine:
If God has arranged everything, man’s will is not free, someone will
say. How can the sinner be responsible? How can he be plied with
motives and arguments? Of what use is it to do anything toward an
end, if all is arranged beforehand by Another? How unjust it is in
God to warn and invite sinners when He has fixed everything
already! All these cavils have their answer in the passages quoted
above. It is vain to think of putting questions such as these until
these strong and explicit declarations have been explained away.
They teach us plainly that our world’s history is a history of events,
preordained by God from eternity, yet at the same time coming to
pass by the free agency of man. This preordination is the effect and
the expression of God’s will, yet it does not in the least interfere with
man’s responsibility. Nor does it suppose any violence done to the
will of man.
It was certain that the ten tribes were to revolt, for it was predicted
long before. But did it make their revolt less voluntary? It was certain
that Christ was to be born at Bethlehem, but did that make the
coming of His parents to that town less voluntary? It was certain that
Judas was to betray Christ, for it had been predicted by David long
before in the Psalms, but did that lessen the sin of Judas or make his
act less free? In the same way I might go over every prophecy, and
ask the same question. And I wonder greatly what our opponents
would answer. How can they reconcile their ideas of free agency with
the fact that the sin of Judas was predicted by the Holy Spirit as
certain, one thousand years before it came to pass? Was Judas a
mere machine? Was God the author of his sin?
But it will be said, Are we not told that this election is according to
foreknowledge? (1 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 8:29). In reference to the first
passage, I would remark that the word foreknowledge,in the second
verse, in the original is the same as that rendered foreordained in the
twentieth verse. There can be no doubt that it means preordination,
for it refers to Christ as the appointed Lamb. And if so, then, it is
impossible to suppose that the word foreknowledge in the second
verse refers simply to foreseeing and nothing more. But then we are
asked to look at Romans 8:29, “Whom He did foreknow, He also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son.” The
word foreknow means not simply to know before hand, but to fix the
choice upon. The meaning is then evidently, “whom God set His
choice upon, them He predestinated to be conformed to the image of
His Son.” These saints were the objects of His eternal choice, they
were appointed by Him to the honor of being made in the image of
His own Son.
I wish to notice some concessions of our adversaries which appear to
overthrow their whole system. They admit that in certain things
there is a real election. They admit, for instance, that there is a real
election of particular nations to particular privileges.
This admission is fatal to their theory. For their main prop was that
the election of individuals was just another word for favoritism and
injustice. Now, if the election of persons is unjust, that of nations
must be more unjust. If the one is inconsistent with man’s
responsibility, so must the other be. If the election of men shows an
undue partiality, much more must the election of nations. For God to
reveal Himself to the Jews and not to the Egyptians is as much
favoritism as for Him to convert one soul and not to convert another.
He did far more for Israel than He did for any other nation. He
brought them near Him. He gave them His Word. He taught them
the way of forgiveness through the blood of the sacrifices. He placed
them in circumstances of peculiar advantage. He did not do this for
Babylon or Nineveh, to Assyria or Egypt. Can it be wrong, then, to
choose individuals, yet right to choose nations? Can it be wrong not
to choose an individual to salvation, yet right not to choose a nation
to those privileges through which alone salvation comes? Can it be
right to pass by some nations and yet wrong to pass by some
individuals? Nations are composed of individuals, and to choose a
nation is to give individuals in that nation a peculiar advantage
which issues in the eternal life of thousands. And so if there is any
injustice in the matter, there is more injustice in a national election
than in a personal one. It will be said, God knew what nations would
reject His message, and therefore He did not send it to them. On this
I offer this:
1. A nation being composed of individuals, our opponents must
maintain that God foresaw that every soul in them would reject the
truth. If not, would it not be hard, upon their theory for God to
withhold the gospel from the whole nation, if He knew that some in
that nation would have believed and been saved?
2. If these nations were denied the gospel, because God foreknew
they would reject it, then they are condemned for a thing they never
did, but which God merely foresaw they would do. Whole nations are
treated as criminals, rejecters of the gospel, when the opportunity
was never given them either to receive or reject it. I am not aware of
anything in Calvinism so hard or unjust as this. We teach that God
punishes men and nations on account of what they actually do, not
on account of what He foresees they would have done if He allowed
them the means. This theory, on the other hand, teaches that whole
nations are condemned to that most fearful of all curses, a
deprivation of the gospel, not on account of their actual sins, but
because certain things were foreseen which they would have done!
Now, if God can justly condemn nations on account of sin not
committed, but merely foreseen as likely to be committed, why may
He not condemn sinners to eternal death for sins never committed,
but only foreseen? Would this be just? Strange that men should
maintain the justice of depriving nations of the gospel for sins which
they never committed, yet affirm the injustice of God choosing a soul
to everlasting life according to His sovereign will. But this is just one
of the paradoxes of Arminianism. God chooses some to life, it is said,
because He foresees they will believe. So that it is not faith that save
us, but God’s foresight of our faith. Nor is it actually unbelief that
ruins us, but God’s foresight of it.
3. God speaks of sending His messages to some who would reject,
and of not sending it to others who were more likely to have received
it, “For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an
hard language, but to the house of Israel — not to many people of a
strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not
understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have
hearkened unto thee” (Ezek. 3:5-6). This surely settles the matter —
it is not a nation’s foreseen willingness to hear that leads God to send
His messengers, nor a nation’s unwillingness foreseen that prevents
Him from sending. It is all according to His sovereign will.
It is affirmed that there is a work equally in the hearts of all men
alike. It is said that God has done and is doing the very utmost that
can be done for every individual of our race; and that to maintain
anything else is to charge God with partiality and injustice, as well as
to deny the responsibility of man. The proof adduced in support of
these statements is a passage in Isaiah 5, “What could have been
done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?” (v. 4). But it is
remarkable that this is one of the strongest proofs that God did a
great deal more for Israel than He did for any other nation. He
allowed the whole world to remain a wilderness, but He made them
His vineyard. He fenced this vineyard. He gathered the stones of it
and planted it with the choicest vine. “He did not deal so with any
other nation.” Was this partiality or injustice? Or was this doing the
same thing for all?
Besides, it is evident that this passage is being perverted. It doesn’t
mean that God at that time had done all He could for Israel. For He
went on to do much more for them. Not only did He not cease to
bless them, but He multiplied His blessings, and increased in
strivings with them, long after He had uttered the words here. So
that the passage cannot mean that He had done all He could, for He
proceeded to do a great deal more, raising up prophet after prophet
to give them line upon line. Nay, many of the most gracious words
Israel ever heard were spoken after this time. If, then, the verse does
really mean that God had actually done His utmost, the inference
which is founded upon it falls to pieces.
It is plain, then, that God does more for some nations than for
others. He did more for Israel than He did for Egypt or Babylon. He
did more for Israel at one time than at another, for one generation
than another; for one district of Judea than another; even for one
individual than another. What else is the meaning of the words of
Jesus, “I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of
Elias ... but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a
city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were
in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was
cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian” (Luke 4:25-27)? Will any of the
deniers of God’s sovereignty furnish a solution of this passage? In
accordance with their views, what can the Lord mean?
It is not true, then, that God does as much for one nation or for one
individual as another. The opposite is and always has been the fact —
a fact frequently referred to in Scripture as proof of God’s right to do
according to His will in the armies of heaven and among the
inhabitants of the earth (Dan, 4:35). No reasonings of men can alter
the fact, nor can any ingenuity deprive the fact of its deep and
solemn meaning. I may perhaps be told that the cause of this
inequality is in the church of Christ, which has not done its duty. It is
said that if Christians had acted aright, the world would have been
converted long before now. As this is a common way of attempting to
solve the difficulty, it may be well to answer fully.
1. Who told them that the cause is wholly in the church? Who told
them that the world would have been converted before now if
Christians had been what they professed to be? Give me one single
passage of Scripture that states this. Surely it is a bold and hazardous
assertion to make, without one verse of Scripture to support it.
2. It is not true. What! Shall such a mighty and majestic event as the
salvation of the world be dependent upon a creature’s will? Is it to
depend upon man whether the world is to be converted or not? Has
God no purpose to be carried out? Has He nothing at all to say in the
matter? Is He to stand by looking on, wondering if it may please His
people to put forth their energies to convert the world?
3. It is unscriptural. There are passages of Scripture which explicitly
contradict it. What, for instance, does God mean when He gives as
the reason why He enjoined Paul to remain and labor in Corinth, “I
have much people in this city”? Again, what is meant by that similar
passage, “And as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed”?
Again, what did our Lord mean when He said (as if explaining the
reason why so many rejected Him), “Many are called, but few are
chosen”? Or what did He mean when He said, “This gospel of the
kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all
nations; and then shall the end come”? And lastly, what did the Holy
Spirit mean, first by forbidding the apostles to preach the Word in
Asia, and then prohibiting Paul from going over to preach in
Bithynia?
4. It is profane. It is saying that the wickedness of the world cannot
be remedied by God, but only by the church; that God has no power
to convert the world; that it is the church which has all the power;
and that unless she pleases to put forth her might and zeal, God can
do nothing for the world. Poor world! This is sad news indeed. Your
destiny hangs on the power and love of your fellow sinners! The
strength and love of your God are nothing and can do nothing for
you. Miserable comfort and miserable comforters indeed! Yet these
are the men who speak so much of the love of God!
Yet I am far from saying that Christians are not much to blame. How
little do the most zealous among us do for souls! How much more
might we do by prayer, by labor and by holy living. Still, I deny that
the inactivity or unbelief of saints will account for the darkness that
overspreads the nations. Failure in duty on the part of the people of
God may account for many things, but not for all. Did the prophets of
old fail in their duty, and was their failure the reason why Nineveh,
or Tyre or Sidon were not converted? Was it their fault that they were
not sent to these cities and received no message for them?
Why were there so many prophets raised up within that small
territory and not one commissioned to bear tidings to a dark and
dying world? Could none be spared? Could no more be raised up?
Did they refuse to go? Had God no message of grace to give them for
the dark millions of Europe or Asia or Ethiopia?
Did the Son of God fail in His duty, in that He did not preach the
gospel to any but the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Why did He
make this distinction? Why did He never travel beyond the narrow
Judean circle? Why did He command His disciples at first to make
the same difference, prohibiting them from preaching the gospel in
the cities of either the Gentiles or the Samaritans? Might not the
Samaritans have said, You tell us that the utmost has been done for
us that can be done, and that all are equally dealt with. Why then are
we passed by? And why are the messengers of peace prohibited from
entering our territory? What answer could be given except that such
was the will and purpose of the only wise God?
Did the apostles afterwards fail in their duty when, after Pentecost,
they went abroad to proclaim the everlasting gospel? Was their
failure the reason why the world was not then converted? Are we not
plainly taught that such was not the case? Why was it that when Paul
wished to go to Bithynia to preach the gospel there, the Spirit would
not allow him to go? Was this doing the utmost for Bithynia that God
could do? Nay, it was not even the utmost that Paul could have done
and wanted to do. If the Spirit works at all, then it is plain that the
reason why He succeeded in some and fails in others must either be
one of the following reasons:
1. It might be because some have naturally better hearts than others,
more inclined towards what is good, made of less rebellious and
more believing materials. This better class of sinners, less stout hearted than others, then could be said to yield and obey, and so are
saved. The rest being more stubborn and ungodly, hold out and are
lost! What hope does this give to the chief of sinners? Where in all
this is there the plucking of brands from the burning?
2. Or, because the Spirit has attempted a work beyond His power He
fails in His efforts. The sinner has overpowered Him and proved
stronger than He. The sinner is able to overcome the Spirit, but the
Spirit is not able to overcome the sinner. The Spirit has done His
utmost and has failed.
But, finally, to say that the Spirit is doing all He can possibly do for
the sinner is either a mere quibble, a play upon words, or else it is a
most melancholy profanity. If it means that literally and truly
Omnipotence has been tasked to the utmost and has failed in the
attempt to convert a sinner, it is profanity. For it is saying that a
creature is mightier than the Creator, able to withstand, nay, able to
overcome Omnipotence. If, however, this is not said to be so, then
what else can be the meaning but that God is doing all He sees fit
to do for each individual? He is putting forth in each the utmost
degree of power that His infinite wisdom sees fit. And if this is all
that is intended, then there is harmony between us. For what is this
but merely another way of stating Jehovah’s absolute and all-wise
sovereignty in giving or withholding blessing?
“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God
forbid. 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.
So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of
God that shews mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even
for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My
power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all
the earth. Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy,
and whom He will He hardens. Thou wilt say then unto Me, Why
doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O
man, who art thou that replies against God? Shall the thing formed
say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not
the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel
unto honor and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to shew
His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might
make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which
He had afore prepared unto glory — even us, whom He hath called,
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (Rom. 9:14-24).
FOREKNOWLEDGE
“Being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh
all things after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11).
It is of some importance that we should settle the real nature of these
two things, predestination and foreknowledge, to ascertain which of
the two is first. The question is, Does God fix a thing simply because
He foreknows it, or does He foreknow it because He has fixed it?
There are vague ideas in man’s mind at these points. It is well to
know the truth with distinctness. I answer, Predestination must be
the foundation of foreknowledge. God foreknows everything that
takes place because He has fixed it. In proof:
1. The opposite of this is an impossibility. To fix a thing is to make
that thing certain to come to pass, which, but for the fixing would not
have happened.... God knew all that might possibly have come to
pass had He let the world alone to act out its iniquity. In all the
infinity of possibilities, He saw that the thing He wanted was not to
be found. Seeing the end from the beginning, He saw that the thing
He desired would never come to pass unless brought into being by a
direct act of His own will. No other will would desire or could effect
that which He saw to be best, either in regard to persons or events.
The thing He wanted was not to be found among the possibilities,
but among the impossibilities, if matters were left to themselves, to
the operation of the usual laws. How, then shall that which is
impossible be rendered not only possible but certain? Evidently by
the direct interference of God! God having thus interfered and
arranged everything according to His wisdom, of necessity He must
know them to come to pass. In other words, He foreknows
everything because He has arranged everything. Everything is certain
in His foreknowledge because it is so in His arrangements.
Take the case of a saved sinner, such as Saul of Tarsus. In looking
forward from eternity, God saw that sinner. He saw him in his guilt
and sin. He saw him hastening away from Himself, He saw that if left
to himself, or to the usual laws of things, Paul would only go deeper
into sin and farther from Himself. He saw that in such a case his
salvation was impossible — that he never would believe and would
never repent and turn. This was all that mere foreknowledge could
tell. Foreknowledge alone can do nothing as to salvation. But here
predestination comes in. God forms a design to bring man to glory,
he is a “chosen vessel.” And having this design regarding him, He
resolves to put forth His power, He prearranges all His plans
concerning him, He fixes the day and the hour of his conversion, and
so He foreknows its certainty — because He has fore-arranged it.
Otherwise it could not have been known; nay, it would have been an
impossibility.
2. The opposite of this is an absurdity. What can be more absurd
than to fix a thing which I already know will come to pass whether I
fix it or not? This is truly imputing foolishness to God. It represents
Him as giving a solemn decree to fix a thing which is already certain.
As if the queen of this realm should decree that the sun should rise
tomorrow, because she knows that it will be the case, from the laws
of nature. Is it not a mockery of God? It makes Him thus to speak, “I
foreordain that a sinner shall be saved, because I foresee that he will
be saved.” Unless, then, we impute folly to God, and affirm that there
is nothing in the word predestination, we must admit that God must
foreordain before He foreknows, and that He knows everything just
because He has fore-arranged everything according to His own
infinite wisdom.
There are two arguments which appear to me quite conclusive. But
let us turn to Scripture. I do not need to again direct your attention
to the passages which were quoted previously. But note two
previously quoted, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel
and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have
crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). “For of a truth against Thy holy child
Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate,
with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
for to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to
be done” (Acts 4:27-28).
1. The language is very explicit and plain. It is the strongest that
could possibly have been used to denote foreordination. There is
nothing about it ambiguous or hard to be understood. To take it in
any other sense would be absurd. The doctrine may be inscrutable,
but the words are plain. And is the nature of the doctrine a reason for
refusing to take the words of God in their natural sense?
2. Admitting our views of foreordination to be true, could they have
been expressed in language different from this, or from that
employed in the Epistle to the Romans and Ephesians? Had we been
left to choose our words for setting forth our views, we could not
have desired any other than these. Can our opponents say the same?
Are these words the most appropriate for expressing their views?
3. This determinate counsel is said to have fixed certain events in
Christ’s history. Now, if some were fixed, we have reason to conclude
that all others also were. Yet in the life and death of Christ we see
nothing but what seemed outwardly to occur in the natural order of
events. It will certainly be conceded that the will of the Son of God
was free from first to last. Yet we learn that what He voluntarily did
and suffered was also predetermined by God. In His case there was
entire free will, yet entire preordination. What, then, becomes of the
objection to predestination, arising from its supposed interference
with the free will of moral agents? In Christ’s life and death we have
a series of preordained events, and at the same time a series of free
actions. And this is sufficient answer to the current objection. We
may not be able to reconcile these things, yet they stand palpably
before us.
4. This determinate counsel is said to have delivered up Christ into
the hands of men. Pilate and Herod, etc., are said to have done what
God’s hand and counsel had predetermined. Here is something still
more striking. The deeds of these wicked men are said to have come
to pass according to this counsel, yet these deeds are no less wicked,
and those men are no less responsible. Here, again, we have another
objection answered, or at least silenced. To reconcile things may be
difficult, yet the statement in this passage is plain. What pride and
folly, then, are there in the questions and cavils which we so often
hear in connection with this doctrine:
If God has arranged everything, man’s will is not free, someone will
say. How can the sinner be responsible? How can he be plied with
motives and arguments? Of what use is it to do anything toward an
end, if all is arranged beforehand by Another? How unjust it is in
God to warn and invite sinners when He has fixed everything
already! All these cavils have their answer in the passages quoted
above. It is vain to think of putting questions such as these until
these strong and explicit declarations have been explained away.
They teach us plainly that our world’s history is a history of events,
preordained by God from eternity, yet at the same time coming to
pass by the free agency of man. This preordination is the effect and
the expression of God’s will, yet it does not in the least interfere with
man’s responsibility. Nor does it suppose any violence done to the
will of man.
It was certain that the ten tribes were to revolt, for it was predicted
long before. But did it make their revolt less voluntary? It was certain
that Christ was to be born at Bethlehem, but did that make the
coming of His parents to that town less voluntary? It was certain that
Judas was to betray Christ, for it had been predicted by David long
before in the Psalms, but did that lessen the sin of Judas or make his
act less free? In the same way I might go over every prophecy, and
ask the same question. And I wonder greatly what our opponents
would answer. How can they reconcile their ideas of free agency with
the fact that the sin of Judas was predicted by the Holy Spirit as
certain, one thousand years before it came to pass? Was Judas a
mere machine? Was God the author of his sin?
But it will be said, Are we not told that this election is according to
foreknowledge? (1 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 8:29). In reference to the first
passage, I would remark that the word foreknowledge,in the second
verse, in the original is the same as that rendered foreordained in the
twentieth verse. There can be no doubt that it means preordination,
for it refers to Christ as the appointed Lamb. And if so, then, it is
impossible to suppose that the word foreknowledge in the second
verse refers simply to foreseeing and nothing more. But then we are
asked to look at Romans 8:29, “Whom He did foreknow, He also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son.” The
word foreknow means not simply to know before hand, but to fix the
choice upon. The meaning is then evidently, “whom God set His
choice upon, them He predestinated to be conformed to the image of
His Son.” These saints were the objects of His eternal choice, they
were appointed by Him to the honor of being made in the image of
His own Son.
I wish to notice some concessions of our adversaries which appear to
overthrow their whole system. They admit that in certain things
there is a real election. They admit, for instance, that there is a real
election of particular nations to particular privileges.
This admission is fatal to their theory. For their main prop was that
the election of individuals was just another word for favoritism and
injustice. Now, if the election of persons is unjust, that of nations
must be more unjust. If the one is inconsistent with man’s
responsibility, so must the other be. If the election of men shows an
undue partiality, much more must the election of nations. For God to
reveal Himself to the Jews and not to the Egyptians is as much
favoritism as for Him to convert one soul and not to convert another.
He did far more for Israel than He did for any other nation. He
brought them near Him. He gave them His Word. He taught them
the way of forgiveness through the blood of the sacrifices. He placed
them in circumstances of peculiar advantage. He did not do this for
Babylon or Nineveh, to Assyria or Egypt. Can it be wrong, then, to
choose individuals, yet right to choose nations? Can it be wrong not
to choose an individual to salvation, yet right not to choose a nation
to those privileges through which alone salvation comes? Can it be
right to pass by some nations and yet wrong to pass by some
individuals? Nations are composed of individuals, and to choose a
nation is to give individuals in that nation a peculiar advantage
which issues in the eternal life of thousands. And so if there is any
injustice in the matter, there is more injustice in a national election
than in a personal one. It will be said, God knew what nations would
reject His message, and therefore He did not send it to them. On this
I offer this:
1. A nation being composed of individuals, our opponents must
maintain that God foresaw that every soul in them would reject the
truth. If not, would it not be hard, upon their theory for God to
withhold the gospel from the whole nation, if He knew that some in
that nation would have believed and been saved?
2. If these nations were denied the gospel, because God foreknew
they would reject it, then they are condemned for a thing they never
did, but which God merely foresaw they would do. Whole nations are
treated as criminals, rejecters of the gospel, when the opportunity
was never given them either to receive or reject it. I am not aware of
anything in Calvinism so hard or unjust as this. We teach that God
punishes men and nations on account of what they actually do, not
on account of what He foresees they would have done if He allowed
them the means. This theory, on the other hand, teaches that whole
nations are condemned to that most fearful of all curses, a
deprivation of the gospel, not on account of their actual sins, but
because certain things were foreseen which they would have done!
Now, if God can justly condemn nations on account of sin not
committed, but merely foreseen as likely to be committed, why may
He not condemn sinners to eternal death for sins never committed,
but only foreseen? Would this be just? Strange that men should
maintain the justice of depriving nations of the gospel for sins which
they never committed, yet affirm the injustice of God choosing a soul
to everlasting life according to His sovereign will. But this is just one
of the paradoxes of Arminianism. God chooses some to life, it is said,
because He foresees they will believe. So that it is not faith that save
us, but God’s foresight of our faith. Nor is it actually unbelief that
ruins us, but God’s foresight of it.
3. God speaks of sending His messages to some who would reject,
and of not sending it to others who were more likely to have received
it, “For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an
hard language, but to the house of Israel — not to many people of a
strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not
understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have
hearkened unto thee” (Ezek. 3:5-6). This surely settles the matter —
it is not a nation’s foreseen willingness to hear that leads God to send
His messengers, nor a nation’s unwillingness foreseen that prevents
Him from sending. It is all according to His sovereign will.
It is affirmed that there is a work equally in the hearts of all men
alike. It is said that God has done and is doing the very utmost that
can be done for every individual of our race; and that to maintain
anything else is to charge God with partiality and injustice, as well as
to deny the responsibility of man. The proof adduced in support of
these statements is a passage in Isaiah 5, “What could have been
done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?” (v. 4). But it is
remarkable that this is one of the strongest proofs that God did a
great deal more for Israel than He did for any other nation. He
allowed the whole world to remain a wilderness, but He made them
His vineyard. He fenced this vineyard. He gathered the stones of it
and planted it with the choicest vine. “He did not deal so with any
other nation.” Was this partiality or injustice? Or was this doing the
same thing for all?
Besides, it is evident that this passage is being perverted. It doesn’t
mean that God at that time had done all He could for Israel. For He
went on to do much more for them. Not only did He not cease to
bless them, but He multiplied His blessings, and increased in
strivings with them, long after He had uttered the words here. So
that the passage cannot mean that He had done all He could, for He
proceeded to do a great deal more, raising up prophet after prophet
to give them line upon line. Nay, many of the most gracious words
Israel ever heard were spoken after this time. If, then, the verse does
really mean that God had actually done His utmost, the inference
which is founded upon it falls to pieces.
It is plain, then, that God does more for some nations than for
others. He did more for Israel than He did for Egypt or Babylon. He
did more for Israel at one time than at another, for one generation
than another; for one district of Judea than another; even for one
individual than another. What else is the meaning of the words of
Jesus, “I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of
Elias ... but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a
city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were
in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was
cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian” (Luke 4:25-27)? Will any of the
deniers of God’s sovereignty furnish a solution of this passage? In
accordance with their views, what can the Lord mean?
It is not true, then, that God does as much for one nation or for one
individual as another. The opposite is and always has been the fact —
a fact frequently referred to in Scripture as proof of God’s right to do
according to His will in the armies of heaven and among the
inhabitants of the earth (Dan, 4:35). No reasonings of men can alter
the fact, nor can any ingenuity deprive the fact of its deep and
solemn meaning. I may perhaps be told that the cause of this
inequality is in the church of Christ, which has not done its duty. It is
said that if Christians had acted aright, the world would have been
converted long before now. As this is a common way of attempting to
solve the difficulty, it may be well to answer fully.
1. Who told them that the cause is wholly in the church? Who told
them that the world would have been converted before now if
Christians had been what they professed to be? Give me one single
passage of Scripture that states this. Surely it is a bold and hazardous
assertion to make, without one verse of Scripture to support it.
2. It is not true. What! Shall such a mighty and majestic event as the
salvation of the world be dependent upon a creature’s will? Is it to
depend upon man whether the world is to be converted or not? Has
God no purpose to be carried out? Has He nothing at all to say in the
matter? Is He to stand by looking on, wondering if it may please His
people to put forth their energies to convert the world?
3. It is unscriptural. There are passages of Scripture which explicitly
contradict it. What, for instance, does God mean when He gives as
the reason why He enjoined Paul to remain and labor in Corinth, “I
have much people in this city”? Again, what is meant by that similar
passage, “And as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed”?
Again, what did our Lord mean when He said (as if explaining the
reason why so many rejected Him), “Many are called, but few are
chosen”? Or what did He mean when He said, “This gospel of the
kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all
nations; and then shall the end come”? And lastly, what did the Holy
Spirit mean, first by forbidding the apostles to preach the Word in
Asia, and then prohibiting Paul from going over to preach in
Bithynia?
4. It is profane. It is saying that the wickedness of the world cannot
be remedied by God, but only by the church; that God has no power
to convert the world; that it is the church which has all the power;
and that unless she pleases to put forth her might and zeal, God can
do nothing for the world. Poor world! This is sad news indeed. Your
destiny hangs on the power and love of your fellow sinners! The
strength and love of your God are nothing and can do nothing for
you. Miserable comfort and miserable comforters indeed! Yet these
are the men who speak so much of the love of God!
Yet I am far from saying that Christians are not much to blame. How
little do the most zealous among us do for souls! How much more
might we do by prayer, by labor and by holy living. Still, I deny that
the inactivity or unbelief of saints will account for the darkness that
overspreads the nations. Failure in duty on the part of the people of
God may account for many things, but not for all. Did the prophets of
old fail in their duty, and was their failure the reason why Nineveh,
or Tyre or Sidon were not converted? Was it their fault that they were
not sent to these cities and received no message for them?
Why were there so many prophets raised up within that small
territory and not one commissioned to bear tidings to a dark and
dying world? Could none be spared? Could no more be raised up?
Did they refuse to go? Had God no message of grace to give them for
the dark millions of Europe or Asia or Ethiopia?
Did the Son of God fail in His duty, in that He did not preach the
gospel to any but the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Why did He
make this distinction? Why did He never travel beyond the narrow
Judean circle? Why did He command His disciples at first to make
the same difference, prohibiting them from preaching the gospel in
the cities of either the Gentiles or the Samaritans? Might not the
Samaritans have said, You tell us that the utmost has been done for
us that can be done, and that all are equally dealt with. Why then are
we passed by? And why are the messengers of peace prohibited from
entering our territory? What answer could be given except that such
was the will and purpose of the only wise God?
Did the apostles afterwards fail in their duty when, after Pentecost,
they went abroad to proclaim the everlasting gospel? Was their
failure the reason why the world was not then converted? Are we not
plainly taught that such was not the case? Why was it that when Paul
wished to go to Bithynia to preach the gospel there, the Spirit would
not allow him to go? Was this doing the utmost for Bithynia that God
could do? Nay, it was not even the utmost that Paul could have done
and wanted to do. If the Spirit works at all, then it is plain that the
reason why He succeeded in some and fails in others must either be
one of the following reasons:
1. It might be because some have naturally better hearts than others,
more inclined towards what is good, made of less rebellious and
more believing materials. This better class of sinners, less stout hearted than others, then could be said to yield and obey, and so are
saved. The rest being more stubborn and ungodly, hold out and are
lost! What hope does this give to the chief of sinners? Where in all
this is there the plucking of brands from the burning?
2. Or, because the Spirit has attempted a work beyond His power He
fails in His efforts. The sinner has overpowered Him and proved
stronger than He. The sinner is able to overcome the Spirit, but the
Spirit is not able to overcome the sinner. The Spirit has done His
utmost and has failed.
But, finally, to say that the Spirit is doing all He can possibly do for
the sinner is either a mere quibble, a play upon words, or else it is a
most melancholy profanity. If it means that literally and truly
Omnipotence has been tasked to the utmost and has failed in the
attempt to convert a sinner, it is profanity. For it is saying that a
creature is mightier than the Creator, able to withstand, nay, able to
overcome Omnipotence. If, however, this is not said to be so, then
what else can be the meaning but that God is doing all He sees fit
to do for each individual? He is putting forth in each the utmost
degree of power that His infinite wisdom sees fit. And if this is all
that is intended, then there is harmony between us. For what is this
but merely another way of stating Jehovah’s absolute and all-wise
sovereignty in giving or withholding blessing?
“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God
forbid. 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.
So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of
God that shews mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even
for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My
power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all
the earth. Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy,
and whom He will He hardens. Thou wilt say then unto Me, Why
doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O
man, who art thou that replies against God? Shall the thing formed
say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not
the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel
unto honor and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to shew
His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might
make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which
He had afore prepared unto glory — even us, whom He hath called,
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (Rom. 9:14-24).