Post by Admin on Oct 17, 2024 15:40:20 GMT -5
5. ELECTION
“Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14).
“As many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).
You know what a prominent place in Scripture the doctrine of
election holds. It meets us everywhere, both in the Old and New
Testaments. Whatever may be the meaning of the word, one cannot
help feeling that the truth which it expresses must, in God’s sight, be
a vitally important one. But how can this be the case if it means no
more than God’s choosing those that choose Him? If it means no
more than God’s choosing those whom He foresaw would believe of
their own accord and by their own power, it is not worthy of the
prominent place it holds in Scripture. Nay, it is not worthy of a
separate name, least of all such a name as election. If there is any
election at all in such a case, it is plainly not God’s election of man,
but man’s election of God. So that the question comes to be simply
this:, Does election mean God’s choosing man, or man’s choosing
God? It cannot mean both. It must be either the one or the other.
Which of the two can any reasonable being suppose it to mean?
As the right understanding of this word is of great importance, I
think it well to note down a few passages which will help to shed light
on the meaning of the word: “The man’s rod whom I shall choose
shall blossom” (Num. 17:5). “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over
thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose” (Deut. 17:15). “The place
which the Lord thy God hath chosen, to put His name there” (Deut.
12:21). “For them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto
Him” (Deut. 21:5). Jerusalem “the city which I have chosen out of all
the tribes of Israel” (1 Kings 11:32). “The Lord God of Israel chose me
before all the house of my father to be king over Israel” (1 Chron.
28:4). “For the elect’s sake whom He hath chosen” (Mark 13:20). “He
is a chosen vessel unto Me” (Acts 9:15). “I know whom I have
chosen” (John 13:18). “Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen
you” (John 15:16). “According as He hath chosen us in Him before
the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). “God hath from the
beginning chosen you to salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13).
These are but a few out of the many passages that might have been
selected. But they are quite enough to show the meaning of the word.
No one who wishes to take words plainly, as he finds them, can find
any difficulty in understanding what choosing or election means,
after reading such passages as these.
I would ask, What does the word election mean in common speech?
When we speak of the election of a member of Parliament, do we
mean that he first chose himself, then the people chose him because
he had chosen himself? Or when we speak of the election of a
minister, do we mean that he first chose himself, then the people
chose him because he had chosen himself? No such theory of election
would be listened to for a moment in such matters. Election has but
one meaning there. It means the people’s choosing their
representative by a distinctive act of their own; or the congregation
choosing their representative by a distinct act of their own will. And
shall man have his will, but God not have His? Shall man have his
choice, but God not have His?
But let us take an instance from the Bible. What does God’s choosing
Abraham mean? He is a specimen of a sinner saved by grace, a
sinner called out of the world by God. Well, how did his election take
place? Did not God think of him long before he ever thought of God?
Did not God choose him long before he ever thought of choosing
God? Were there not thousands more in Chaldea that God might
have chosen and called and saved if He had so pleased? Yet He chose
Abraham alone. And what does the Bible call this procedure on the
part of God? It calls it election! “Thou art the Lord the God, who
didst choose Abram and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the
Chaldees” (Neh. 9:7). Does anyone say, Oh, but God chose Abraham
because He foresaw that Abraham would choose Him. I answer, the
case is precisely the reverse of this. He chose Abraham just because
He saw that otherwise Abraham would not choose Him. It was God’s
foreseeing that Abraham would not choose Him that made election
necessary.
And so it is with us. God chooses us, not because He foresees that we
would choose Him, or that we would believe, but for the very
opposite reason. He chooses us just because He foresees that we
would neither choose Him nor believe at all, of ourselves. Election
proceeds not on foreseen faith in us, but on foreseen unbelief?
The truth is, election has no meaning if it is not the expression of
God’s will in reference to particular persons and things. He says to
each, You shall be thus and thus, not because you choose to be so,
but because I the infinite God see fit that you should be so. To one
creature He says, You shall be an angel. To another, You shall be a
man. To one order of beings, You shall dwell in Heaven; to another,
You shall dwell on earth. To one man, You shall be born in Judea,
where My name is named and My temple stands. To another, You
shall be born in Egypt, or Babylon, where utter darkness reigns. To
one He says, You shall be born in Britain and hear the glad tidings.
To another, You shall be born in Africa where no gospel has ever
come. So He expresses His will, and who can resist it? Who can find
fault, or say to Him, What doest Thou? Men may object at being
placed thus entirely at the disposal of God, but the apostle’s answer
to such is, “Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”
(Rom. 9:20). Election, then, is the distinct forth-putting of God’s
sovereign will, for the purpose of bringing a thing to pass; which, but
for the explicit forth-going of that will, would not have come to pass.
But does this not lead to the conclusion that sin is the direct result of
God’s decree? Does it not teach us that it is God and not man that
produces sin? No. God does not foreordain sin, but He decrees to
allow man to sin. God is holy and hates sin. He does not lead men
into it; neither does He decree to lead men into it. But He decrees
that, for infinitely wise ends, the creature should be permitted to fall,
and sin to be perpetuated.
1. God forces no man to sin, either by what He decrees or what He
does, either by commanding or constraining or alluring.
2. It is absurd to say that if we hold that God is the author of good,
then He must be the author of evil — that if He from eternity
purposed to create what is good in man, He must therefore have
purposed to create that which is evil. It is absurd to say that if I hold
that it is God who sets my will right, then I must hold that it is God
who set it wrong.
3. God frequently gave predictions of evil long before the time. Of
course, then, if evil is predicted regarding either nations or
individuals, then it must be fixed and sure. He predicted the curse on
Canaan and his descendants. But does that prove that He was
delighted in the curse, or that He was the author of it, or that those
who were the instruments of inflicting it, and so fulfilling the
prophecy, were guiltless?
4. Even our opponents admit that there are some events decreed
beforehand, such as the birth and death of Christ, the Judgment Day,
etc. If, then, they admit that He has decreed a single event they are in
precisely the same difficulty in which they seek to fix us. If one event
is decreed, why not all? Who is to draw the line and say, These are
decreed, but these are not? God’s will has already fixed one or two,
and is man’s will, or chance, to settle the rest?
In further explanation of this point, let me quote a few paragraphs
from a tract which I published some years ago:
I know that the sinner must have a will in the matter too. It is
absurdity to speak of a sinner loving, believing, etc., against his will,
or by compulsion. The sinner must will, beyond doubt. He must will
to take the broad way, and he must will to take the narrow way. His
will is essential to all these movements of his soul. But in what state
do we find his will at present? We find it is wholly set against the
truth. Every will since the fall is wholly opposed to God and His
Word. Man needs no foreign influence, no external power to make
him reject the truth. That he does by nature. He hates it with his
whole heart. When a sinner then comes to receive the truth, how is
this accomplished? Does he renew himself? Does he change the
enmity of his will by the unaided act of his will? Does he of himself
bend back his own will into the opposite direction? Does he, by a
word of his own power, cause the current that had been flowing
downhill to change its course and flow upward? Does his own will
originate the change in itself, and carry the change into effect?
Impossible! The current would have flowed forever downward had it
not been arrested in its course by something stronger than itself. The
sinner’s will would have remained forever in depravity and bondage,
had not another Will, far mightier than itself, coming into contact
with it, and altered both its nature and course, working in the sinner
“both to will and to do.” Was the sinner willing before this other Will
met his? No! Was he willing after? Yes! Then, is it not plain that it
was God’s will meeting and changing the sinner’s will that made the
difference? God’s will was first.
It was God’s will that began the work and made the sinner willing.
He never would have willed had not God made him willing. “Thy
people shall be willing in the day of Thy power.” It is the power of
Jehovah applied to us that makes us willing. Till that is applied, we
are unwilling. It is His hand, operating directly upon the soul, that
changes its nature and its bent. Were it not for that our
unwillingness would never be removed. No outward means or
motives would be sufficient to effect the change, for all these means
and motives are rejected by the sinner. Nor does he become willing
even to allow the approach or application of these means or motives
till God makes him willing. To speak of his being changed by that
which he rejects as is absurd as to speak of a man’s being healed by a
medicine which he persists in refusing. “Can the Ethiopian change
his skin, or the leopard his spots?” (Jer. 13:23).
Then are all willing? Doesn’t the depraved will remain in most, while
the new will appears in few? What makes the difference? God’s
choice! “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” “Hath
not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one
vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?” (Rom. 9:21). “Except
the Lord of Hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should
have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah”
(Isa. 1:9).
Does God then hinder sinners from believing and willing? No, by no
means. He hinders none. They are their own hindrance. “Ye will not
come to Me, that ye might have life.” Not one soul would be saved if
left to his own will. But, in His infinite mercy, God does not leave
them to their own wills. He puts forth His mighty power on some to
make them willing. Were it not for this, all would be lost, for all
would reject the Savior.
But is this not unjust? Is God dealing fairly with His creatures in
making some willing and leaving the rest to their unwillingness?
What! Are we to prohibit God from saving any unless He saves all?
Are we to accuse Him of injustice because He leaves some to reap the
fruits of their unbelief and delivers others from it? Is God unjust in
saving whom He will, when all were lost?
Some are given to accusing us of making God guilty of partiality. As if
they were singular in their zeal for God’s honor, they exclaim, We
cannot bear a partial God. Partiality means, of course, injustice. It
means also that the sinner has a right to favor from God. They must
show, then, that for God to save some when all were lost is unjust.
They must show that all sinners had a right to His favor, for if none
had any right, there can be no partiality. But if this theory is true,
then God was partial in not providing a Savior for fallen angels. He
was partial in choosing Israel, and not choosing Egypt or Babylon, as
the nation to whom He made Himself known. He was partial in
sending prophets to Israel and not to Tyre and Sidon. He was partial
in doing His mighty works in the land of Judea. And Jesus was
partial in commanding His disciples not to go to either Gentiles or
Samaritans. In short, if sovereignty is partial, then the Bible is full of
it. And it would be just as well for these men to say at once what their
theory implies — that God is not at liberty to act as He pleases, but
can do only what man dictates.
But why does God save some and not all? Because such is “the good
pleasure of His will.” He has infinitely wise reasons for this, though
we do not understand them. Might we not with equal propriety ask,
Why did He keep some angels from falling? And, Why did He allow
others to fall? Or, may we not ask, Why did He not think of saving
angels, why think of saving men alone? Is Jehovah not at liberty to
do what He will with His own? Is He not at liberty to create as many
worlds and as many beings as He pleases? And when these are
ruined, is He not at liberty to redeem as many or as few as He
pleases?
Are all men so depraved that they will not be saved unless God puts
forth His mighty power? That is the real question in all this.
If so, then, it is plain that God must put forth His power to save
everyone that is saved. And surely He is at liberty to choose whom
He is to save. If indeed men are not totally depraved, then there is no
need for the interposition of God’s hand either in choosing or in
saving. But admit man’s total depravity and ruin, and you must
admit the direct forth-putting of the arm of Jehovah. And so it is that
many in our day are beginning to deny man’s total depravity of
nature. They are smoothing down the expressions which do refer to it
in Scripture, and claiming for man as much remaining power and
goodness as will enable him in part to save himself, to do it without
the interposition of God.
The following remarks of Calvin will show that in his day none but
“Papist theologians” held the doctrine that God elects men because
He foresaw they would believe. “The Papist theologians have a
distinction current among themselves, that God does not elect men
according to the works which are in them, but that He chooses those
who He foresees will be believers. And therein they contradict what
we have already alleged from St. Paul, for he says that we are chosen
and elected in Him, ‘that we might be holy and without blame.’ Paul
must have spoken otherwise if God elected us having foreseen that
we should be holy. But he has not used such language. He says, ‘He
has elected us that we might be holy.’ He infers, therefore, that the
latter (faith) depends upon the former (election). Those who think
otherwise know not what man and human is.” Such is the witness of
Calvin against the Papal theologians; since that time many have
joined the ranks of these theologians and glory in their heresies.
Oh, but it is said, we do not deny election. We merely maintain that
God elected those whom He foresaw would believe. I answer, this is a
total denial of election. And it is dishonesty or ignorance to call this
by such a name. God elects those who He foresaw would believe, you
say? And who were they? None! Absolutely none! He foresaw that
none would believe, not one. And because He foresaw this, He
elected some to believe. Otherwise not one would have!
With regard to the foreseeing who would believe, I have some
difficulties to state: According to the Arminian theory, I may believe
today and disbelieve tomorrow, according to my own will. I may thus
go on believing and disbelieving alternately until the day of my
death. God then one day foresees that I will believe, and He decrees
to save me. But the next day He foresees me not believing, and He
decrees that I should perish. How, in such a case, is the matter to be
finally settled? Is it according to the state in which God foresees the
sinner will be at the last moment of life? Or when? Let our opponents
solve the difficulty, if they are able.
Oh, but some profane objector says, Does God make men to be
damned? Let me in a few words answer the miserable atheism of
such an objection.... It is somewhat remarkable that this is precisely
the argument of Socinians, Universalists and Deists against the
existence of such a place as hell. If you speak of hell or everlasting
fire to such, their answer is, Did God make men to damn them? And
however abominable and unscriptural their notion is, it is at least
consistent with their own theory. Making God to be all love and
nothing else, they think it inconsistent with His love that He should
allow such a place as hell in the universe. They do not believe in a
hell, so they ask, Did God make men to damn them?
But let me answer the question, however profane it may be. God did
not make men to damn them! He did not make the angels who “kept
not their first estate,” to damn them. He did not make Lucifer for the
purpose of casting him out of Paradise. He did not make Judas for
the purpose of sending him to his own place. God made man — every
man and every thing — to glorify Himself. This every creature, man
and angel must do, either actively or passively, either willingly or
unwillingly; actively and willingly in Heaven, or passively and
unwillingly in hell. This is God’s purpose and it shall stand. God may
have many other ends in creation, but this is the chief one, the
ultimate one — the one which is above all the others, and to which all
the rest are subordinate.
In this sense then plainly, God did not make men either to destroy
them or to save them. He made them for His own glory. If the
question is asked, Did God make the devil and his angels only to
damn them, I answer, He made them for His own glory. They are lost
forever, but does that prove that He made them to destroy them? He
kept their companions from falling, and so they are called the “elect
angels,” while He did not keep them. But does this prove that He
made them to destroy them? They fell, and in a moment they were
consigned to everlasting chains. He made no effort to save them, He
sent no redemption to them. But does this prove that He made them
only to destroy them? If ever such an accusation could be preferred
against God, it must be in the case of the angels, to whom no
salvation was sent. It cannot be said of man, to whom a salvation has
come.
Whatever is right for God to do, it is right for Him to decree. If God’s
casting sinners into hell is not wrong or unjust, then His purposing
to do so from all eternity cannot be wrong or unjust. So that you
must either deny that there is a hell, or admit God’s right to
predestinate who are to dwell there forever. There is no middle way
between Calvinism and Universalism.
With these remarks I leave this point, and in doing so I would merely
call your attention to one or two passages of Scripture which it would
be well for those to ponder who put such a question as that to which I
have given an answer:
“The Lord hath made all things for Himself; yea, even the wicked for
the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4).
“As many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).
“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.... 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”
(Rom. 9:17, 22).
Texts like these are not to be explained away or overlooked. They are
part of God’s Holy Word, just as much as “God is love.” And if one
class of texts is to be twisted or turned away from, why not another?
Let us look both in the face, and let us believe them both, whatever
difficulty we may find in reconciling them.
Our first duty is to believe, not to reconcile. There are many things
which in this life we shall not be able to reconcile, but there is
nothing in the Bible which we need to shrink from believing.
“For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass’s
colt” (Job 11:12)
“Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14).
“As many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).
You know what a prominent place in Scripture the doctrine of
election holds. It meets us everywhere, both in the Old and New
Testaments. Whatever may be the meaning of the word, one cannot
help feeling that the truth which it expresses must, in God’s sight, be
a vitally important one. But how can this be the case if it means no
more than God’s choosing those that choose Him? If it means no
more than God’s choosing those whom He foresaw would believe of
their own accord and by their own power, it is not worthy of the
prominent place it holds in Scripture. Nay, it is not worthy of a
separate name, least of all such a name as election. If there is any
election at all in such a case, it is plainly not God’s election of man,
but man’s election of God. So that the question comes to be simply
this:, Does election mean God’s choosing man, or man’s choosing
God? It cannot mean both. It must be either the one or the other.
Which of the two can any reasonable being suppose it to mean?
As the right understanding of this word is of great importance, I
think it well to note down a few passages which will help to shed light
on the meaning of the word: “The man’s rod whom I shall choose
shall blossom” (Num. 17:5). “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over
thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose” (Deut. 17:15). “The place
which the Lord thy God hath chosen, to put His name there” (Deut.
12:21). “For them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto
Him” (Deut. 21:5). Jerusalem “the city which I have chosen out of all
the tribes of Israel” (1 Kings 11:32). “The Lord God of Israel chose me
before all the house of my father to be king over Israel” (1 Chron.
28:4). “For the elect’s sake whom He hath chosen” (Mark 13:20). “He
is a chosen vessel unto Me” (Acts 9:15). “I know whom I have
chosen” (John 13:18). “Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen
you” (John 15:16). “According as He hath chosen us in Him before
the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). “God hath from the
beginning chosen you to salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13).
These are but a few out of the many passages that might have been
selected. But they are quite enough to show the meaning of the word.
No one who wishes to take words plainly, as he finds them, can find
any difficulty in understanding what choosing or election means,
after reading such passages as these.
I would ask, What does the word election mean in common speech?
When we speak of the election of a member of Parliament, do we
mean that he first chose himself, then the people chose him because
he had chosen himself? Or when we speak of the election of a
minister, do we mean that he first chose himself, then the people
chose him because he had chosen himself? No such theory of election
would be listened to for a moment in such matters. Election has but
one meaning there. It means the people’s choosing their
representative by a distinctive act of their own; or the congregation
choosing their representative by a distinct act of their own will. And
shall man have his will, but God not have His? Shall man have his
choice, but God not have His?
But let us take an instance from the Bible. What does God’s choosing
Abraham mean? He is a specimen of a sinner saved by grace, a
sinner called out of the world by God. Well, how did his election take
place? Did not God think of him long before he ever thought of God?
Did not God choose him long before he ever thought of choosing
God? Were there not thousands more in Chaldea that God might
have chosen and called and saved if He had so pleased? Yet He chose
Abraham alone. And what does the Bible call this procedure on the
part of God? It calls it election! “Thou art the Lord the God, who
didst choose Abram and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the
Chaldees” (Neh. 9:7). Does anyone say, Oh, but God chose Abraham
because He foresaw that Abraham would choose Him. I answer, the
case is precisely the reverse of this. He chose Abraham just because
He saw that otherwise Abraham would not choose Him. It was God’s
foreseeing that Abraham would not choose Him that made election
necessary.
And so it is with us. God chooses us, not because He foresees that we
would choose Him, or that we would believe, but for the very
opposite reason. He chooses us just because He foresees that we
would neither choose Him nor believe at all, of ourselves. Election
proceeds not on foreseen faith in us, but on foreseen unbelief?
The truth is, election has no meaning if it is not the expression of
God’s will in reference to particular persons and things. He says to
each, You shall be thus and thus, not because you choose to be so,
but because I the infinite God see fit that you should be so. To one
creature He says, You shall be an angel. To another, You shall be a
man. To one order of beings, You shall dwell in Heaven; to another,
You shall dwell on earth. To one man, You shall be born in Judea,
where My name is named and My temple stands. To another, You
shall be born in Egypt, or Babylon, where utter darkness reigns. To
one He says, You shall be born in Britain and hear the glad tidings.
To another, You shall be born in Africa where no gospel has ever
come. So He expresses His will, and who can resist it? Who can find
fault, or say to Him, What doest Thou? Men may object at being
placed thus entirely at the disposal of God, but the apostle’s answer
to such is, “Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”
(Rom. 9:20). Election, then, is the distinct forth-putting of God’s
sovereign will, for the purpose of bringing a thing to pass; which, but
for the explicit forth-going of that will, would not have come to pass.
But does this not lead to the conclusion that sin is the direct result of
God’s decree? Does it not teach us that it is God and not man that
produces sin? No. God does not foreordain sin, but He decrees to
allow man to sin. God is holy and hates sin. He does not lead men
into it; neither does He decree to lead men into it. But He decrees
that, for infinitely wise ends, the creature should be permitted to fall,
and sin to be perpetuated.
1. God forces no man to sin, either by what He decrees or what He
does, either by commanding or constraining or alluring.
2. It is absurd to say that if we hold that God is the author of good,
then He must be the author of evil — that if He from eternity
purposed to create what is good in man, He must therefore have
purposed to create that which is evil. It is absurd to say that if I hold
that it is God who sets my will right, then I must hold that it is God
who set it wrong.
3. God frequently gave predictions of evil long before the time. Of
course, then, if evil is predicted regarding either nations or
individuals, then it must be fixed and sure. He predicted the curse on
Canaan and his descendants. But does that prove that He was
delighted in the curse, or that He was the author of it, or that those
who were the instruments of inflicting it, and so fulfilling the
prophecy, were guiltless?
4. Even our opponents admit that there are some events decreed
beforehand, such as the birth and death of Christ, the Judgment Day,
etc. If, then, they admit that He has decreed a single event they are in
precisely the same difficulty in which they seek to fix us. If one event
is decreed, why not all? Who is to draw the line and say, These are
decreed, but these are not? God’s will has already fixed one or two,
and is man’s will, or chance, to settle the rest?
In further explanation of this point, let me quote a few paragraphs
from a tract which I published some years ago:
I know that the sinner must have a will in the matter too. It is
absurdity to speak of a sinner loving, believing, etc., against his will,
or by compulsion. The sinner must will, beyond doubt. He must will
to take the broad way, and he must will to take the narrow way. His
will is essential to all these movements of his soul. But in what state
do we find his will at present? We find it is wholly set against the
truth. Every will since the fall is wholly opposed to God and His
Word. Man needs no foreign influence, no external power to make
him reject the truth. That he does by nature. He hates it with his
whole heart. When a sinner then comes to receive the truth, how is
this accomplished? Does he renew himself? Does he change the
enmity of his will by the unaided act of his will? Does he of himself
bend back his own will into the opposite direction? Does he, by a
word of his own power, cause the current that had been flowing
downhill to change its course and flow upward? Does his own will
originate the change in itself, and carry the change into effect?
Impossible! The current would have flowed forever downward had it
not been arrested in its course by something stronger than itself. The
sinner’s will would have remained forever in depravity and bondage,
had not another Will, far mightier than itself, coming into contact
with it, and altered both its nature and course, working in the sinner
“both to will and to do.” Was the sinner willing before this other Will
met his? No! Was he willing after? Yes! Then, is it not plain that it
was God’s will meeting and changing the sinner’s will that made the
difference? God’s will was first.
It was God’s will that began the work and made the sinner willing.
He never would have willed had not God made him willing. “Thy
people shall be willing in the day of Thy power.” It is the power of
Jehovah applied to us that makes us willing. Till that is applied, we
are unwilling. It is His hand, operating directly upon the soul, that
changes its nature and its bent. Were it not for that our
unwillingness would never be removed. No outward means or
motives would be sufficient to effect the change, for all these means
and motives are rejected by the sinner. Nor does he become willing
even to allow the approach or application of these means or motives
till God makes him willing. To speak of his being changed by that
which he rejects as is absurd as to speak of a man’s being healed by a
medicine which he persists in refusing. “Can the Ethiopian change
his skin, or the leopard his spots?” (Jer. 13:23).
Then are all willing? Doesn’t the depraved will remain in most, while
the new will appears in few? What makes the difference? God’s
choice! “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” “Hath
not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one
vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?” (Rom. 9:21). “Except
the Lord of Hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should
have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah”
(Isa. 1:9).
Does God then hinder sinners from believing and willing? No, by no
means. He hinders none. They are their own hindrance. “Ye will not
come to Me, that ye might have life.” Not one soul would be saved if
left to his own will. But, in His infinite mercy, God does not leave
them to their own wills. He puts forth His mighty power on some to
make them willing. Were it not for this, all would be lost, for all
would reject the Savior.
But is this not unjust? Is God dealing fairly with His creatures in
making some willing and leaving the rest to their unwillingness?
What! Are we to prohibit God from saving any unless He saves all?
Are we to accuse Him of injustice because He leaves some to reap the
fruits of their unbelief and delivers others from it? Is God unjust in
saving whom He will, when all were lost?
Some are given to accusing us of making God guilty of partiality. As if
they were singular in their zeal for God’s honor, they exclaim, We
cannot bear a partial God. Partiality means, of course, injustice. It
means also that the sinner has a right to favor from God. They must
show, then, that for God to save some when all were lost is unjust.
They must show that all sinners had a right to His favor, for if none
had any right, there can be no partiality. But if this theory is true,
then God was partial in not providing a Savior for fallen angels. He
was partial in choosing Israel, and not choosing Egypt or Babylon, as
the nation to whom He made Himself known. He was partial in
sending prophets to Israel and not to Tyre and Sidon. He was partial
in doing His mighty works in the land of Judea. And Jesus was
partial in commanding His disciples not to go to either Gentiles or
Samaritans. In short, if sovereignty is partial, then the Bible is full of
it. And it would be just as well for these men to say at once what their
theory implies — that God is not at liberty to act as He pleases, but
can do only what man dictates.
But why does God save some and not all? Because such is “the good
pleasure of His will.” He has infinitely wise reasons for this, though
we do not understand them. Might we not with equal propriety ask,
Why did He keep some angels from falling? And, Why did He allow
others to fall? Or, may we not ask, Why did He not think of saving
angels, why think of saving men alone? Is Jehovah not at liberty to
do what He will with His own? Is He not at liberty to create as many
worlds and as many beings as He pleases? And when these are
ruined, is He not at liberty to redeem as many or as few as He
pleases?
Are all men so depraved that they will not be saved unless God puts
forth His mighty power? That is the real question in all this.
If so, then, it is plain that God must put forth His power to save
everyone that is saved. And surely He is at liberty to choose whom
He is to save. If indeed men are not totally depraved, then there is no
need for the interposition of God’s hand either in choosing or in
saving. But admit man’s total depravity and ruin, and you must
admit the direct forth-putting of the arm of Jehovah. And so it is that
many in our day are beginning to deny man’s total depravity of
nature. They are smoothing down the expressions which do refer to it
in Scripture, and claiming for man as much remaining power and
goodness as will enable him in part to save himself, to do it without
the interposition of God.
The following remarks of Calvin will show that in his day none but
“Papist theologians” held the doctrine that God elects men because
He foresaw they would believe. “The Papist theologians have a
distinction current among themselves, that God does not elect men
according to the works which are in them, but that He chooses those
who He foresees will be believers. And therein they contradict what
we have already alleged from St. Paul, for he says that we are chosen
and elected in Him, ‘that we might be holy and without blame.’ Paul
must have spoken otherwise if God elected us having foreseen that
we should be holy. But he has not used such language. He says, ‘He
has elected us that we might be holy.’ He infers, therefore, that the
latter (faith) depends upon the former (election). Those who think
otherwise know not what man and human is.” Such is the witness of
Calvin against the Papal theologians; since that time many have
joined the ranks of these theologians and glory in their heresies.
Oh, but it is said, we do not deny election. We merely maintain that
God elected those whom He foresaw would believe. I answer, this is a
total denial of election. And it is dishonesty or ignorance to call this
by such a name. God elects those who He foresaw would believe, you
say? And who were they? None! Absolutely none! He foresaw that
none would believe, not one. And because He foresaw this, He
elected some to believe. Otherwise not one would have!
With regard to the foreseeing who would believe, I have some
difficulties to state: According to the Arminian theory, I may believe
today and disbelieve tomorrow, according to my own will. I may thus
go on believing and disbelieving alternately until the day of my
death. God then one day foresees that I will believe, and He decrees
to save me. But the next day He foresees me not believing, and He
decrees that I should perish. How, in such a case, is the matter to be
finally settled? Is it according to the state in which God foresees the
sinner will be at the last moment of life? Or when? Let our opponents
solve the difficulty, if they are able.
Oh, but some profane objector says, Does God make men to be
damned? Let me in a few words answer the miserable atheism of
such an objection.... It is somewhat remarkable that this is precisely
the argument of Socinians, Universalists and Deists against the
existence of such a place as hell. If you speak of hell or everlasting
fire to such, their answer is, Did God make men to damn them? And
however abominable and unscriptural their notion is, it is at least
consistent with their own theory. Making God to be all love and
nothing else, they think it inconsistent with His love that He should
allow such a place as hell in the universe. They do not believe in a
hell, so they ask, Did God make men to damn them?
But let me answer the question, however profane it may be. God did
not make men to damn them! He did not make the angels who “kept
not their first estate,” to damn them. He did not make Lucifer for the
purpose of casting him out of Paradise. He did not make Judas for
the purpose of sending him to his own place. God made man — every
man and every thing — to glorify Himself. This every creature, man
and angel must do, either actively or passively, either willingly or
unwillingly; actively and willingly in Heaven, or passively and
unwillingly in hell. This is God’s purpose and it shall stand. God may
have many other ends in creation, but this is the chief one, the
ultimate one — the one which is above all the others, and to which all
the rest are subordinate.
In this sense then plainly, God did not make men either to destroy
them or to save them. He made them for His own glory. If the
question is asked, Did God make the devil and his angels only to
damn them, I answer, He made them for His own glory. They are lost
forever, but does that prove that He made them to destroy them? He
kept their companions from falling, and so they are called the “elect
angels,” while He did not keep them. But does this prove that He
made them to destroy them? They fell, and in a moment they were
consigned to everlasting chains. He made no effort to save them, He
sent no redemption to them. But does this prove that He made them
only to destroy them? If ever such an accusation could be preferred
against God, it must be in the case of the angels, to whom no
salvation was sent. It cannot be said of man, to whom a salvation has
come.
Whatever is right for God to do, it is right for Him to decree. If God’s
casting sinners into hell is not wrong or unjust, then His purposing
to do so from all eternity cannot be wrong or unjust. So that you
must either deny that there is a hell, or admit God’s right to
predestinate who are to dwell there forever. There is no middle way
between Calvinism and Universalism.
With these remarks I leave this point, and in doing so I would merely
call your attention to one or two passages of Scripture which it would
be well for those to ponder who put such a question as that to which I
have given an answer:
“The Lord hath made all things for Himself; yea, even the wicked for
the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4).
“As many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).
“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.... 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”
(Rom. 9:17, 22).
Texts like these are not to be explained away or overlooked. They are
part of God’s Holy Word, just as much as “God is love.” And if one
class of texts is to be twisted or turned away from, why not another?
Let us look both in the face, and let us believe them both, whatever
difficulty we may find in reconciling them.
Our first duty is to believe, not to reconcile. There are many things
which in this life we shall not be able to reconcile, but there is
nothing in the Bible which we need to shrink from believing.
“For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass’s
colt” (Job 11:12)