WHO IS THIS MELCHISEDEC #24
October 28, , 2000
Brian Kocourek
This evening we will take our
text once again from paragraph 50 of Brother Branham's sermon, Who is this Melchisedec, where brother Branham
said, God's
sovereign in His choosing, did you
know that? God's sovereign.. We will subtitle our message
tonight, the sovereignty of God in Election. I believe the last message we
spoke from our series on Who is This Melchisedec was The Sovereignty of God in
reprobation. Tonight we will look at God's Sovereignty in His Choosing as
Brother Branham so stated in Paragraph 50 of Who is this Melchisedec, where he
said, God's
sovereign in His choosing, did you
know that? God's sovereign..
If there be
those whom God has elected unto
salvation 2 Thess. 2:3, there must be others who are not elected unto
salvation. If there are some that the Father gave to Christ John 6:37, there
must be others whom he did not give unto Christ. If there are some whose names
are written in the Lamb's book of Life Rev. 21:27, there must be others whose
names were not written there.
ISAIAH 65:9
9
And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an
inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants
shall dwell there.
ISAIAH 65:22 They shall not build, and another inhabit;
they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree [are] the days
of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
MATTHEW 20:16 So
the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few
chosen.
MATTHEW 22:14 For
many are called, but few [are] chosen.
MATTHEW 24:22 And except those days should be shortened,
there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be
shortened.
MATTHEW 24:24 For
there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs
and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very
elect.
MATTHEW 24:31 And
he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather
together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
MARK 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall
rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even
the elect.
MARK 13:27 And
then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four
winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
LUKE 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect,
which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? 8 I
tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man
cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
ROMANS 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of
God's elect? [It is] God that justifieth.
COLOSSIANS 3:12
¶ Put on therefore, as the elect of
God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind,
meekness, longsuffering; 13
Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a
quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also [do] ye. 14 And above all these things [put on]
charity, which is the bond of perfectness. 15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also
ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.
16 Let the word of Christ
dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms
and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the
Lord. 17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, [do] all in the name of
the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
I TIMOTHY
5:21 I charge [thee] before God, and
the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things
without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
TITUS 1:1 ¶
Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the
faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after
godliness; 2 Elect according to the
foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto
obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and
peace, be multiplied. 3 ¶ Blessed [be]
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant
mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead, 4 To an
inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in
heaven for you 5 Who are kept by the
power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last
time. 6 ¶ Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be,
ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of
gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise
and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom,
though now ye see [him] not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and
full of glory: 9 Receiving the end of
your faith, [even] the salvation of [your] souls. 10 ¶ Of which salvation
the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace
[that should come] unto you: 11
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in
them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and
the glory that should follow. 12 Unto
whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister
the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the
gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the
angels desire to look into. 13
¶ Wherefore gird up the loins of
your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought
unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
II TIMOTHY
2:10 Therefore I endure all things for
the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ
Jesus with eternal glory.
I PETER 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God
the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
I PETER 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the
scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he
that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which
believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which
the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 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. 9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the
praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
II JOHN 1:1 ¶ The elder unto the elect lady and her
children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have
known the truth; 2 For the truth's
sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever. 3 Grace be with you, mercy, [and] peace,
from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in
truth and love.
REVELATION 17:14
14
¶ These shall make war with the
Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of
kings: and they that are with him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful.
Now all will
acknowledge that from the foundation of the world God certainly foreknew and
foresaw who would and who would not receive Christ as their Savior, therefore
in giving being and birth to those he knew would reject Christ, he necessarily
created them unto damnation. All that can be said in reply to this is, No,
while God did foreknow these ones would reject Christ, yet he did not decree
that they should. But this is a begging of the real question at issue. God had
a definite reason why he created men, a specific purpose why he created this
and that individual, and in view of the eternal destination of his creatures,
he purposed either that this one should spend eternity in Heaven or that this
one should spend
eternity in the
Lake of Fire. If then he foresaw that in creating a certain person that that
person would despise and reject the Savior, yet knowing this beforehand he,
nevertheless, brought that person into existence, then it is clear he designed
and ordained that that person should be eternally lost. Again; fait is God's
gift, and the purpose to give it only to some, involves the purpose not to give
it to others. Without faith there is no salvation — "he that believeth not
shall be damned" — hence if there were some of Adam's descendants to whom
he purposed not to give faith, it must be, because he ordained that they should
be damned.
Not only is
there no escape from these conclusions, but history confirms them. Before the
Divine Incarnation, for almost two thousand years, the vast majority of mankind
were left destitute of even the external means of grace, being favored with no
preaching of God's Word and with no written revelation of his will. For many
long centuries Israel was the only nation to whom the Deity vouchsafed any
special discovery of himself — "Who in times past suffered all nations to
walk in their own ways" Acts 14:16 — "You only (Israel) have I known
of all the families of the earth" Amos 3:2. Consequently, as all other
nations were deprived of the preaching of God's Word, they were strangers to
the faith that cometh thereby Rom. 10:17. These nations were not only ignorant
of God himself, but of the way to please him, of the true manner of acceptance
with him, and the means of arriving at the everlasting enjoyment of himself.
Now if God had
willed their salvation, would he not have vouchsafed them the means of
salvation? Would he not have given them all things necessary to that end? But
it is an undeniable matter of fact that he did not. If, then, Deity can,
consistently, with his justice, mercy, and benevolence, deny to some the means
of grace, and shut them up in gross darkness and unbelief (because of the sins
of their forefathers, generations before), why should it be deemed incompatible
with his perfections to exclude some persons, many, from grace itself, and from
that eternal life which is connected with it? seeing that he is Lord and
sovereign disposer both of the end to which the means lead, and the means which
lead to that
end?
Coming down to
our own day, and to those in our own country — leaving out the almost
unnumberable crowds of unevangelized heathen — is it not evident that there are
many living in lands where the Gospel is preached, lands which are full of
churches, who die strangers to God and his holiness? True, the means of grace
were close to their hand, but many of them knew it not. Thousands are born into
homes where they are taught from infancy to regard all Christians as hypocrites
and preachers as arch humbugs. Others, are instructed from the cradle in Roman
Catholicism, and are trained to regard Evangelical Christianity as deadly
heresy, and the Bible as a book highly dangerous for them to read. Others,
reared in "Christian Science" families, know no more of the true Gospel
of Christ than do the unevangelized heathen. The great majority of these die in
utter ignorance of the Way of Peace. Now are we not obliged to conclude that it
was not God's will to communicate grace to them? Had his will been otherwise,
would he not have actually communicated his grace to them? If, then, it was the
will of God, in time, to refuse to them his grace, it must have been his will
from all eternity, since his will is, as himself, the same yesterday, and today
and forever. Let it not be forgotten that God's providences are but the
manifestations of his decrees: what God does in time is only what he purposed
in eternity — his own will being the alone cause of all his acts and works.
Therefore from his actually leaving some men in final impenitency and unbelief
we assuredly gather it was his everlasting determination so to do; and
consequently that he reprobated some from before the foundation of the world.
In the
Westminster Confession it is said, "God from all eternity did by the most
wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably foreordain
whatsoever comes to pass". The late Mr. F.W. Grant — a most careful and
cautious student and writer — commenting on these words said: "It is
perfectly, divinely true, that God hath ordained for his own glory whatsoever
comes to pass." Now if these statements are true, is not the doctrine of
Reprobation established by them? What, in human history, is the one thing which
does come to pass every day? What, but that men and women die, pass out of this
world into a hopeless eternity, an eternity of suffering and woe. If then God
has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass then he must have decreed that vast
numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved to suffer
eternally in the Lake of Fire. Admitting the general premise, is not the
specific conclusion inevitable?
In reply to
the preceding paragraphs the reader may say, All this is simply reasoning,
logical no doubt, but yet mere
inferences.
Very well, we will now point out that in addition to the above conclusions
there are many passages in Holy
Writ, which
are most clear and definite in their teaching on this solemn subject; passages
which are too plain to be
misunderstood
and too strong to be evaded. The marvel is that so many good men have denied
their undeniable
affirmations.
"Joshua
made war a long time with all those kings. There was not a city that made peace
with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all
other they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that
they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly,
and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord
commanded Moses" Jos 11:18-20. What could be plainer than this? Here was a
large number of Canaanites whose hearts the Lord hardened, whom he had purposed
to utterly destroy, to whom he showed "no favour". Granted that they
were wicked, immoral, idolatrous; were they any worse than the immoral,
idolatrous
cannibals of
the South Sea Islands (and many other places), to whom God gave the Gospel
through John G. Paton! Assuredly not. Then why did not Jehovah command Israel
to teach the Canaanites his laws and instruct them concerning sacrifices to the
true God? Plainly, because he had marked them out for destruction, and if so,
that from all eternity.
"The Lord
hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of
evil." Prov. 16:4. That the Lord made all, perhaps every reader of this
book will allow: that he made all for himself is not so widely believed. That
God made us, not for our own sakes, but for himself; not for our own happiness,
but for his glory; is, nevertheless, repeatedly affirmed in Scripture — Rev.
4:11. But Prov. 16:4 goes even farther: it expressly declares that the Lord
made the wicked for the day of evil: that was his design in giving them being.
But why? Does not Rom. 9:17 tell us, "For the Scripture saith unto
Pharaoh, Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power
in thee, and that my name might be
declared
throughout all the earth"! God has made the wicked that at the end, he may
demonstrate "his power" — demonstrate it by showing what an easy
matter it is for him to subdue the stoutest rebel and to overthrow his mightiest
enemy.
"And then
will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work
iniquity" Matt. 7:23. In the previous chapter it has been shown that, the
words "know" and "foreknowledge" when applied to God in the
Scriptures, have reference not simply to his prescience (i.e. his bare
knowledge beforehand), but to his knowledge of approbation. When God said to
Israel, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" Amos
3:2, it is evident that he meant, "You only had I any favourable regard
to." When we read in Rom. 11:2 God hath not cast away his people (Israel)
whom he foreknew", it is obvious that what was signified is, "God has
not finally rejected that people whom he has chosen as the objects of his love
— cf. Deut. 7:7,8. In the same way (and it is the only possible way) are we to
understand Matt. 7:23.
In the day of
judgment the Lord will say unto many, "I never knew you". Note, it is
more than simply "I know you not". His solemn declaration will be,
"I never knew you" — you were never the objects of my approbation.
Contrast this with "I know (love) my sheep, and am known (loved) of
mine" John 10:14. The "sheep", his elect, the "few",
he does "know"; but the reprobate, the non-elect, the
"many" he knows not — no, not even before the foundation of the world
did he know them — he "NEVER" knew them!
In Rom. 9:1-33
the doctrine of God's sovereignty in its application to both, the elect and the
reprobate is treated of at length. A detailed exposition of this important
chapter would be beyond our present scope; all that we can essay is to dwell
upon the part of it which most clearly bears upon the aspect of the subject
which we are now considering.
Rom. 9:17.
"For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I
raised thee up that I might show my, power in thee, and that my name might be
declared throughout all the earth." These words refer us back to Rom. 9:13
and Rom. 9:14. In Rom. 9:13 God's love to Jacob and his hatred to Esau are
declared. In Rom. 9:14 it is asked "Is there unrighteousness with
God?" and here in Rom. 9:17 the apostle continues his reply to the
objection. We cannot do better now than quote from Calvin's comments upon this
verse. "There are here two things to be considered, — the predestination
of Pharaoh to ruin, which is to be referred to the past and yet the hidden
counsel of God, — and then, the design of this, which was to make known the
name of God. As many interpreters, striving to modify this passage,
pervert it, we
must first observe, that for the word "I have raised thee up", or
stirred up, in the Hebrew is, "I have appointed", by which it
appears, that God, designing to show that the contumacy of Pharaoh would not
prevent him to deliver his people, not only affirms that his fury had been foreseen
by him, and that he had prepared means for restraining it, but that he had also
thus designedly ordained it and indeed for this end, — that he might exhibit a
more illustrious evidence of his own power." It will be observed that
Calvin gives as the force of the Hebrew word which Paul renders "For this
purpose have I raised thee up", — "I have appointed". As this is
the word on which the doctrine and argument of the verse turns we would further
point out that in making this quotation from Ex. 9:16 the apostle significantly
departs from
the Septuagint — the version then in common use, and from which he most
frequently quotes — and substitutes a clause for the first that is given by the
Septuagint: instead of "On this account thou hast been preserved", he
gives "For this very end have I raised thee up"!
But we must
now consider in more detail the case of Pharaoh which sums up in concrete
example the great controversy between man and his Maker. "For now I will
stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and
thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I
raised thee up, for to show in thee my power; and that my name may be declared
throughout all the earth" Ex. 9:15,16. Upon these words we offer the
following comments:
First, we know
from Ex. 14:1-15:27 that Pharaoh was cut off, that he was cut off by God, that
he was cut off in the very midst of his wickedness, that he was cut off not by
sickness nor by the infirmities which are incident to old age, nor by what men
term an accident, but cut off by the immediate hand of God in judgment.
Second, it is
dear that God raised up Pharaoh for this very end — to "cut him off",
which in the language of the New Testament means "destroyed." God
never does anything without a previous design. In giving him being, in
preserving him through infancy and childhood, in raising him to the throne of
Egypt, God had one end in view. That such was God's purpose is clear from his
words to Moses before he went down to Egypt, to demand of Pharaoh that
Jehovah's people should be allowed to go a three days' journey into the
wilderness to worship him — "And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest
to return into Egypt, see that thou do all these wonders before Pharaoh, which
I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let
the people go" Ex. 4:21. But not only so, God's design and purpose was
declared long before this. Four hundred years previously God had said to
Abraham, "Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land
that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four
hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge"
Gen. 15:13,14. From these words it is evident (a nation and its king being
looked at as one in the Old Testament) that God's purpose was formed long
before he gave Pharaoh being.
Third, an
examination of God's dealings with Pharaoh makes it clear that Egypt's king was
indeed a "vessel of wrath fitted to destruction." Placed on Egypt's
throne, with the reins of government in his hands, he sat as head of the nation
which occupied the first rank among the peoples of the world. There was no
other monarch on earth able to control or dictate to Pharaoh. To such a dizzy
height did God raise this reprobate, and such a course was a natural and
necessary step to prepare him for his final fate, for it is a divine axiom that
"pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall."
Further, — and this is deeply important to note and highly significant — God
removed from Pharaoh the one outward restraint which was calculated to act as a
check upon him. The bestowing upon Pharaoh of the unlimited powers of a king
was setting him above all legal influence and control. But besides this, God
removed Moses from his presence and kingdom. Had Moses, who not only was
skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians but also had been reared in
Pharaoh's household, been suffered to remain in close proximity to the throne,
there can be no doubt but that his example and influence had been a powerful
check upon the king's wickedness and tyranny. This, though not the only cause,
was plainly one reason why God sent Moses into Midian, for it was during his
absence that Egypt's inhuman king framed his most cruel edicts. God designed,
by removing this restraint, to give Pharaoh full opportunity to fill up the
full measure of his sins, and ripen himself for his fully deserved but
predestined ruin.
Fourth, God
"hardened" his heart as he declared he would Ex 4:21. This is in full
accord with the declarations of Holy Scripture — "The preparations of the
heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord" Prov. 16:1;
"The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water, he
turneth it whithersoever he will" Prov. 21:1. Like all other kings,
Pharaoh's heart was in the hand of the Lord; and God had both the right and the
power to turn it whithersoever he pleased. And it pleased him to turn it
against all good. God determined to hinder Pharaoh from granting his request
through Moses to let Israel go, until he had fully prepared him for his final
overthrow, and because nothing short of this would fully fit him, God hardened
his heart.
Finally, it is
worthy of careful consideration to note how the vindication of God in his
dealings with Pharaoh has been fully attested. Most remarkable it is to
discover that we have Pharaoh's own testimony in favour of God and against
himself! In Ex. 9:15,16 we learn how God had told Pharaoh for what purpose he
had raised him up, and in Ex. 9:27 we are told that Pharaoh said, "I have
sinned this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked."
Mark that this was said by Pharaoh after he knew that God had raised him up in
order to "cut him off", after his severe judgments had been sent upon
him, after he had hardened his own heart. By this time Pharaoh was fairly
ripened for judgment, and fully prepared to decide whether God had injured him,
or whether he had sought to injure God; and he fully acknowledges that he had
"sinned" and that God was "righteous". Again; we have the
witness of Moses who was fully acquainted with God's conduct toward Pharaoh. He
had heard at the beginning what was God's design in connection with Pharaoh; He
had witnessed God's dealings with him; he had observed his "long
sufferance" toward this vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and at last
he had beheld him cut off in Divine judgment at the Red Sea. How then was Moses
impressed? Does he raise the cry of injustice? Does he dare to charge God with
unrighteousness? Far from it. Instead, he says, "Who is like unto thee, O
Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious, in holiness, fearful in
praises, doing wonders!" Ex. 15:11.
Was Moses
moved by a vindictive spirit as he saw Israel's arch enemy "cut off"
by the waters of the Red Sea? Surely not. But to remove forever all doubt upon
this score, it remains to be pointed out how that saints in Heaven, after they
have witnessed the sore judgments of God, join in singing "the song of
Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb saying, Great and marvellous
are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of
Nations" Re 15:3. here then is the climax, and the full and final
vindication of God's dealings with Pharaoh. Saints in heaven join in singing
the song of Moses, in which that servant of God celebrated Jehovah's praise in
overthrowing Pharaoh and his hosts, declaring that in so acting God was not
unrighteous but just and true. We must believe, therefore, that the Judge of
all the earth did right in creating and destroying this vessel of wrath,
Pharaoh. The case of Pharaoh establishes the principle and illustrates the
doctrine of Reprobation. If God actually reprobated
Pharaoh, we
may justly conclude that he reprobates all others whom he did not predestinate
to be conformed to the image of his Son. This inference the apostle Paul
manifestly draws from the fate of Pharaoh, for in Ro 9:1-33, after referring to
God's purpose in raising up Pharaoh, he continues, "therefore". The
case of Pharaoh is introduced to prove the doctrine of Reprobation as the
counterpart of the doctrine of Election.
In conclusion,
we would say that in forming Pharaoh God displayed neither justice nor
injustice, but only his bare sovereignty. As the potter is sovereign in forming
vessels, so God is sovereign in forming moral agents.
Rom. 9:18.
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he
hardeneth". The "therefore" announces the general conclusion
which the apostle draws from all he had said in the three preceding verses in
denying that God was unrighteous in loving Jacob and hating Esau, and
specifically it applies the principle exemplified in God's dealings with
Pharaoh. It traces everything back to the sovereign will of the Creator. He
loves one and hates another, he exercises mercy toward some and hardens others,
without reference to anything save his own sovereign will.
That which is
most repellant to the carnal mind in the above verse is the reference to
hardening — "Whom he will he hardeneth" — and it is just here that so
many commentators and expositors have adulterated the truth. The most common
view is that the apostle is speaking of nothing more than judicial hardening,
i.e., a forsaking by God because these subjects of his displeasure had first
rejected his truth and forsaken him. Those who contend for this interpretation
appeal to such scriptures as Rom. 1:19-26 — God gave them up, that is (see
context) those who knew God yet glorified him not as God Ro 1:21. Appeal is
also made to 2 Thess. 2:10-12. But it is to be noted that the word
"harden" does not occur in either of these passages. But further, we
submit that Rom. 9:18 has no reference whatever to judicial
"hardening". The apostle is not there speaking of those who had
already turned their backs on God's truth, but instead, he is dealing with
God's sovereignty, God's sovereignty as seen not only in showing mercy to whom
he wills, but also in hardening whom he pleases. The exact words are "Whom
he will" — not "all who have rejected his truth" — "he
hardeneth", and this, coming immediately after the mention of Pharaoh,
clearly fixes their meaning. The case of Pharaoh is plain enough, though man by
his glosses has done his best to hide the truth.
Rom. 9:18.
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he
hardeneth". This affirmation of God's sovereign "hardening" of
sinners' hearts — in contradistinction from judicial hardening — is not alone.
Mark the language of John 12:37-40, "But though he had done so many
miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: that the saying of Isaiah
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 (why?), because that Isaiah said again, he hath blinded their
eyes, and hardened their hearts (why? Because they had refused to believe on
Christ? This is the popular belief, but mark the answer of Scripture) that they
should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be
converted, and I should heal them." Now, reader, it is just a question as
to whether or not you will believe what God has revealed in his Word. It is not
a matter of prolonged searching or profound study, but a childlike spirit which
is needed, in order to understand this doctrine.
Rom. 9:19.
"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath
resisted his will?" Is not this the very objection which is urged today?
The force of the apostle's questions here seems to be this: Since everything is
dependent on God's will, which is irreversible, and since this will of God,
according to which he can do everything as sovereign — since he can have mercy
on whom he wills to have mercy, and can refuse mercy and inflict punishment on
whom he chooses to do so — why does he not will to have mercy on all, so as to
make them obedient, and thus put finding of fault out of court? Now it should
be particularly noted that the apostle does not repudiate the ground on which
the objection rests. He does not say God does not find fault. Nor does he say,
Men may resist his will. Furthermore, he does not explain away the objection by
saying: You have altogether misapprehended my meaning when I said "Whom he
wills he treats kindly, and whom he wills he treats severely". But he
says, "`first, this is an objection you have no right to make'; and then,
`This is an objection you have no reason to make'" (see Dr. Brown). The
objection was utterly inadmissible, for it was a replying against God. It was
to complain about, argue against, what God had done!
Rom. 9:19.
"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why, doth he yet find fault? For who hath
resisted his will?" The language which the apostle here puts into the
mouth of the objector is so plain and pointed, that misunderstanding ought to
be impossible. Why doth he yet find fault? Now, reader, what can these words
mean? Formulate your own reply before considering ours. Can the force of the
apostle's question be any other than this: If it is true that God has
"mercy" on whom he wills, and also "hardens" whom he wills,
then what becomes of human responsibility? In such a case men are nothing
better than puppets, and if this be true then it would be unjust for God to
"find fault" with his helpless creatures. Mark the
word
"then" — thou wilt say then unto me — he states the (false) inference
or conclusion which the objector draws from what the apostle had been saying.
And mark, my reader, the apostle readily saw the doctrine he had formulated
would raise this very objection, and unless what we have written throughout
this book provokes, in some at least, (all whose carnal minds are not subdued
by divine grace) the same objection, then it must be either because we have not
presented the doctrine which is set forth in Rom. 9:1-33, or else because human
nature has changed since the apostle's day. Consider now the remainder of the
verse Rom. 9:19. The apostle repeats the same objection in a slightly different
form — repeats it so that his meaning may not be missunderstood — namely,
"For who hath resisted his will?" It is clear
then that the
subject under immediate discussion relates to God's "will", i.e., his
sovereign ways, which confirms what we have said above upon Rom. 9:17,18, where
we contended that it is not judicial hardening which is in view (that is,
hardening because of previous rejection of the truth), but sovereign
"hardening", that is, the "hardening" of a fallen and
sinful creature for no other reason than that which inheres in the sovereign
will of God. And hence the question, "Who hath resisted his will?"
What then does the apostle say in reply to these objections?
Rom. 9:20.
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing
formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" The
apostle, then, did not say the objection was pointless and groundless, instead,
he rebukes the objector for his impiety. He reminds him that he is merely a
"man", a creature, and that as such it is most unseemly and
impertinent for him to "reply (argue, or reason) against God".
Furthermore, he reminds him that he is nothing more than a "thing
formed", and therefore, it is madness and blasphemy to rise up against the
former himself. Ere leaving this verse it should be pointed out that its
closing words, "Why hast thou made me thus" help us to determine,
unmistakably, the precise subject under discussion. In the light of the
immediate context what can be the force of the "thus"? What, but as
in the case of Esau, why hast thou made me an object of "hatred"?
What, but as in the case of Pharaoh, Why hast thou made me simply to
"harden" me? What other meaning can, fairly, be assigned to it?
It is highly
important to keep clearly before us that the apostle's object throughout this
passage is to treat of God's sovereignty in dealing with, on the one hand,
those whom he loves — vessels unto honour and vessels of mercy, and also, on
the other hand, with those whom he "hates" and "hardens" —
vessels unto dishonour and vessels of wrath.
Rom. 9:21-23.
"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one
vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show
his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering 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." In
these verses the apostle furnishes a full and final reply to the objections
raised in Rom. 9:19. First, he asks, "Hath not the potter power over the
clay?" etc. It is to be noted the word here translated "power"
is a different one in the Greek from the one rendered "power" in Rom.
9:22 where it can only signify his might; but here in Rom. 9:21, the power
spoken of must refer to the Creator's rights or sovereign prerogatives; that
this is so, appears from the fact that the same Greek word is employed in John
1:12 — "As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons
of God" — which, as is well known, means the right or privilege to become
the sons of God. The R.V. employs "right" both in John 1:12 and Rom.
9:21.
Rom. 9:21.
"Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one
vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" That the
"potter" here is God himself is certain from the previous verse,
where the apostle asks "Who art thou that repliest against God?" and
then, speaking in the terms of the figure he was about to use, continues,
"Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it" etc. Some there
are who would rob these words of their force by arguing that while the human
potter makes certain vessels to be used for less honourable purposes than
others, nevertheless, they are designed to fill some useful place. But the
apostle does not here say, "Hath not the potter power over the clay of the
same lump, to make one vessel unto an honourable use and another to a less
honourable use", but he speaks of some "vessels" being made
"unto dishonour." It is true, of course, that God's wisdom will yet
be fully vindicated, in as much as the destruction of the reprobate will
promote his glory — in what way the next verse tells us.
Ere passing to
the next verse let us summarize the teaching of this and the two previous ones.
In Rom. 9:19 two questions are asked, "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why
doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" To those
questions a threefold answer is returned. First, in Rom. 9:20 the apostle
denies the creature the right to sit in judgment upon the ways of the Creator —
"Nay, but, O man who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing
formed say to him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus?" The apostle
insists that the rectitude of God's will must not be questioned. Whatever he does
must be right. Second, in Rom. 9:21 the apostle declares that the Creator has
the right to dispose of his creatures as he sees fit — "Hath not the
potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour,
and another unto dishonour?" It should be carefully noted that the word
for "power" here is exousian — an entirely different word from the
one translated "power" in the following verse ("to make known
his power"), where it is dunamin. In the words "Hath not the potter
power over the clay?" it must be God's power justly exercised, which is in
view — the exercise of God's rights consistently with his justice, — because
the mere assertion of his omnipotency would be no such answer as God would
return to the questions asked in Rom. 9:19. Third, in Ro 9:22,23, the apostle
gives the reasons why God proceeds differently with one of his creatures from
another: on the one hand, it is to "shew his wrath" and to "make
his power known"; on the other hand, it is to "make known the riches
of his glory."
"Hath not
the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto
honour, and another unto dishonour?" Certainly God has the right to do
this because he is the Creator. Does he exercise this right? Yes, as Rom.
9:13,17 clearly show us — "For this same purpose have I raised thee
(Pharaoh) up".
Rom. 9:22.
"What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known,
endured with much
longsuffering
the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction". Here the apostle tells us in
the second place, why God acts thus, i.e., differently with different ones —
having mercy on some and hardening others, making one vessel unto honour and
another unto dishonour. Observe, that here in Rom. 9:22 the apostle first
mentions "vessels of wrath", before he refers in Rom. 9:23 to the
"vessels of mercy". Why is this? The answer to this question is of
first importance: we reply, Because it is the "vessels of wrath" who
are the subjects in view before the objector in Rom. 9:19. Two reasons are
given why God makes some "vessels unto dishonour": first, to
"show his wrath", and secondly "to make his power known" —
both
of which were
exemplified in the case of Pharaoh.
One point in
the above verse requires separate consideration — "Vessels of wrath fitted
to destruction." The usual explanation which is given of these words is
that the vessels of wrath fit themselves to destruction, that is, fit
themselves by virtue of their wickedness; and it is argued that there is no
need for God to "fit them to destruction", because they are already
fitted by their own depravity, and that this must be the real meaning of this
expression. Now if by "destruction" we understand punishment, it is
perfectly true that the non-elect do "fit themselves", for everyone
will be judged "according to his works"; and further, we freely grant
that subjectively the non-elect do fit themselves for destruction. But
the point to
be decided is, Is this what the apostle is here referring to? And, without
hesitation, we reply it is not. Go back to Rom. 9:11-13: did Esau fit himself
to be an object of God's hatred, or was he not such before he was born? Again;
did Pharaoh fit himself for destruction, or did not God harden his heart before
the plagues were sent upon Egypt? — see Ex 4:21!
Rom. 9:22 is clearly
a continuation in thought of Rom. 9:21 and Rom. 9:21 is part of the apostle's
reply to the questions raised in Rom. 9:20: therefore, to fairly follow out the
figure, it must be God himself who "fits" unto destruction the
vessels of wrath. Should it be asked how God does this, the answer,
necessarily, is, objectively, — he fits the non-elect unto destruction by his
fore-ordinating decrees. Should it be asked why God does this, the answer must
be, to promote his own glory, i.e., the glory of his justice, power and wrath.
"The sum of the apostle's answer here is, that the grand object of God,
both in the election and the reprobation of men, is that which is paramount to
all things else in the creation of men, namely, his own glory" (Robert Haldane).
Rom. 9:23.
"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of
mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." The only point in this
verse which demands attention is the fact that the "vessels of mercy"
are here said to be "afore prepared unto glory". Many have pointed
out that the previous verse does not say the vessels of wrath were afore
prepared unto destruction, and from this omission they have concluded that we
must understand the reference there to the non-elect fitting themselves in
time, rather than God ordaining them for destruction from all eternity. But
this conclusion by no means follows. We need to look back to Rom. 9:21 and note
the figure which is there employed. "Clay" is inanimate matter,
corrupt, decomposed, and therefore a fit substance to represent fallen
humanity. As then the apostle is contemplating God's sovereign dealings with
humanity in view of the Fall, he does not say the vessels of wrath were
"afore" prepared unto destruction, for the obvious and sufficient reason
that, it was not until after the Fall that they became (in themselves) what is
here symbolized by the "clay". All that is necessary to refute the
erroneous conclusion referred to above, is to point out that what is said of
the vessels of wrath is not that they are fit for destruction (which is the
word that would have been used if the reference had been to them fitting
themselves by their own wickedness), but fitted to destruction; which, in the
light of the whole context, must mean a sovereign ordination to destruction by
the Creator. We quote here the pointed words of Calvin on this passage —
"There are vessels prepared for destruction, that is, given up and
appointed to destruction; they are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and
formed for this end, that they may be examples of God's vengeance and
displeasure. Though in the second clause the apostle asserts more expressly,
that it is God who prepared the elect for glory, as he had simply said before
that the reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction, there is yet no doubt
but that the preparation of both is connected with the secret counsel of God.
Paul might have otherwise said, that the reprobate gave up or cast themselves
into destruction, but he intimates here, that before they are born they are
destined to their lot". With this we are in hearty accord. Rom. 9:29 does
not say the vessels of wrath fitted themselves, nor does it say they are fit
for destruction, instead, it declares they are "fitted to
destruction", and the context shows plainly it is God who thus
"fits" them — objectively by his eternal decrees.
Though Rom.
9:1-33 contains the fullest setting forth of the doctrine of Reprobation, there
are still other passages which refer to it, one or two more of which we will
now briefly notice: —
"What
then? That which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not, but the election
obtained it, and the rest were hardened" Rom. 11:7 R.V.). Here we have two
distinct and clearly defined classes which are set in sharp antithesis: the
"election" and "the rest"; the one "obtained",
the other is "hardened". On this verse we quote from the comments of
John Bunyan of immortal memory: — "These are solemn words: they sever
between men and men — the election and the rest, the chosen and the left, the
embraced and the refused. By 'rest' here must needs be understood those not
elect, because set the one in opposition to the other, and if not elect, whom
then but reprobate?"
Writing to the
saints at Thessalonica the apostle declared, "For God hath not appointed
us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ" 1 Thess.
5:9. Now surely it is patent to any impartial mind that this statement is quite
pointless if God has not "appointed" any to wrath. To say that God
"hath not appointed us to wrath", clearly implies that there are some
whom he has "appointed to wrath", and were it not that the minds of
so many professing Christians are so blinded by prejudice, they could not fail
to clearly see this.
"A Stone
of stumbling, and a Rock or offence, even to them who stumble at the Word,
being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed" 1Pe 2:8. The
whereunto manifestly points back to the stumbling at the Word, and their
disobedience. Here, then, God expressly affirms that there are some who have
been "appointed" (it is the same Greek word as in 1 Thess. 5:9 unto
disobedience. Our business is not to reason about it, but to bow to Holy
Scripture. Our first duty is not to understand, but to believe what God has
said. "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,
speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in
their own corruption" 2 Pet. 2:12. Here, again, every effort is made to
escape the plain teaching of this solemn passage. We are told that it is the
"brute beasts" who are "made to be taken and destroyed",
and not the persons here likened to them. All that is needed to refute such
sophistry is to inquire wherein lies the point of analogy between the
"these" (men) and the "brute beasts"? What is the force of
the "as" — but "these as brute beasts"? Clearly, it is that
"these" men as brute beasts, are the ones who, like animals, are
"made to be taken and destroyed": the closing words confirming this
by reiterating the same sentiment — "and shall utterly perish in their own
corruption."
"For
there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to
this condemnation; ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into
lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ"
Jude 1:4. Attempts have been made to escape the obvious force of this verse by
substituting a different translation. The R.V. gives: "But there are
certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand
unto this condemnation." But this altered rendering by no means gets rid
of that which is so distasteful to our sensibilities. The question arises,
Where were these "of old written of beforehand"? Certainly not in the
Old Testament, for nowhere is there any reference there to wicked men creeping
into Christian assemblies. If "written of" be the best translation of
"prographo", the
reference can
only be to the book of the divine decrees. So whichever alternative be selected
there can be no evading the fact that certain men are "before of old"
marked out by God "unto condemnation."
"And all
that dwell on the earth shall worship him (viz. the Antichrist), every one
whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the Book
of Life of the Lamb that hath been slain" Rev. 13:8, R.V. compare Rev.
17:8. Here, then, is a positive statement affirming that there are those whose
names were not written in the Book of Life. Because of this they shall render
allegiance to and bow down before the Antichrist.
Here, then,
are no less than ten passages which most plainly imply or expressly teach the
fact of reprobation. They affirm that the wicked are made for the Day of Evil;
that God fashions some vessels unto dishonour; and by his eternal decree
(objectively) fits them unto destruction; that they are like brute beasts, made
to be taken and destroyed, being of old ordained unto this condemnation.
Therefore in the face of these scriptures we unhesitatingly affirm (after
nearly twenty years careful and prayerful study of the subject) that the Word
of God unquestionably teaches both Predestination and Reprobation, or to use
the words of Calvin, "Eternal Election is God's predestination of some to
salvation, and others to destruction".
Having thus
stated the doctrine of Reprobation, as it is presented in Holy Writ, let us now
mention one or two important considerations to guard it against abuse and
prevent the reader from making any unwarranted deductions: —
First, the
doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God purposed to take innocent
creatures, make them wicked, and then damn them. Scripture says, "God hath
made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions" Eccl. 7:29.
God has not created sinful creatures in order to destroy them, for God is not
to be charged with the sin of his creatures. The responsibility and criminality
is man's.
God's decree
of Reprobation contemplated Adam's race as fallen, sinful, corrupt, guilty.
From it God purposed to save a few as the monuments of his sovereign grace; the
others he determined to destroy as the exemplification of his justice and
severity. In determining to destroy these others, God did them no wrong. They
had already fallen in Adam, their legal representative; they are therefore born
with a sinful nature, and in their sins he leaves them. Nor can they complain.
This is as they wish; they have no for holiness; they love darkness rather than
light. Where, then, is there any injustice if God "gives them up to their
own hearts' lusts" Psa. 81:12!
Second, the
doctrine of Reprobation does not mean God refuses to save those who earnestly
seek salvation. The fact is that the reprobate have no longing for the Saviour:
they see in him no beauty that they should desire him. They will not come to
Christ — why then should God force them to? He turns away none who do come —
where then is the injustice of God fore-determining their just doom? None will
be punished but for their iniquities; where then, is the supposed tyrannical
cruelty of the Divine procedure? Remember that God is the Creator of the wicked,
not of their wickedness; he is the Author of their being, but not the Infuser
of their sin.
God does not
(as we have been slanderously reported to affirm) compel the wicked to sin, as
the rider spurs on an unwilling horse. God only says in effect that awful word,
"Let them alone" Mt 15:14. He needs only to slacken the reins of
providential restraint, and withhold the influence of saving grace, and
apostate man will only too soon and too surely, of his own accord, fall by his
iniquities. Thus the decree of reprobation neither interferes with the bent of
man's own fallen nature, nor serves to render him the less inexcusable.
Third, the
decree of Reprobation in no wise conflicts with God's goodness. Though the
non-elect are not the objects of his goodness in the same way or to the same
extent as the elect are, yet are they not wholly excluded from a participation
of it. They enjoy the good things of Providence (temporal blessings) in common
with God's own children, and very often to a higher degree. But how do they
improve them? Does the (temporal) goodness of God lead them to repent? Nay,
verily, they do but "despise his goodness, and forbearance, and
longsuffering, and after their hardness and impenitency of heart treasure up
unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath" Rom. 2:4,5. On what
righteous ground, then, can they murmur against not being the objects of his
benevolence in the endless ages yet to come? Moreover, if it did not clash with
God's mercy and kindness to leave the entire body of the fallen angels 2 Pet.
2:4 under the guilt of their apostasy; still less can it clash with the Divine
perfections to leave some of fallen mankind in their sins and punish them for
them.
Finally, let
us interpose this necessary caution: It is utterly impossible for any of us,
during the present life, to ascertain who are among the reprobate. We must not
now so judge any man, no matter how wicked he may be. The vilest sinner, may,
for all we know, be included in the election of grace and be one day quickened by
the Spirit of grace. Our marching orders are plain, and woe be unto us if we
disregard them — "Preach the Gospel to every creature". When we have
done so our skirts are clear. If men refuse to heed, their blood is on their
own heads; nevertheless "we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them
that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one we are a savour of death
unto death; and to the other we are a savour of life unto life" 2 Cor.
2:15,16.
We must now
consider a number of passages which are often quoted with the purpose of
showing that God has not fitted certain vessels to destruction or ordained
certain ones to condemnation. First, we cite Ezek. 18:31 — "Why will ye
die, O house of Israel?" On this passage we cannot do better than quote
from the comments of Augustus Toplady: — "This is a passage very
frequently, but very idly, insisted upon by Arminians, as if it were a hammer
which would at one stroke crush the whole fabric to powder. But it so happens
that the "death" here alluded to is neither spiritual nor eternal
death: as is abundantly evident from the whole tenor of the chapter. The death
intended by the prophet is a political death; a death of national prosperity,
tranquillity, and security. The sense of the question is precisely this: What
is it that makes you in love with captivity, banishment, and civil ruin?
Abstinence from the worship of images might, as a people, exempt you from these
calamities, and once more render you a respectable nation. Are the miseries of
public devastation so alluring as to attract your determined pursuit? Why will
ye die? die as the house of Israel, and considered as a political body? Thus
did the prophet argue the case, at the same time adding — "For I have no
pleasure in the death of him that dieth saith the Lord God, wherefore, turn
yourselves, and live ye." This imports: First, the national captivity of
the Jews added nothing to the happiness of God. Second, if the Jews turned from
idolatry, and flung away their images, they should not die in a foreign, hostile
country, but live peaceably in their own land and enjoy their liberties as an
independent people." To the above we may add: political death must be what
is in view in Ezek. 18:31-32 for the simple but sufficient reason that they
were already spiritually dead!
Matt. 25:41 is
often quoted to show that God has not fitted certain vessels to destruction —
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil
and his angels." This is, in fact, one of the principal verses relied upon
to disprove the doctrine of Reprobation. But we submit that the emphatic word
here is not "for" but "Devil." This verse (see context)
sets forth the severity of the judgment which awaits the lost. In other words,
the above scripture expresses the awfulness of the everlasting fire rather than
the subjects of it — if the fire be "prepared for the Devil and his
angels" then
how
intolerable it will be! If the place of eternal torment into which the damned
shall be cast is the same as that in which God's arch enemy will suffer, how
dreadful must that place be!
Again: if God
has chosen only certain ones to salvation, why are we told that God "now
commandeth all men everywhere to repent" Acts 17:3? That God commandeth
"all men" to repent is but the enforcing of his righteous claims as
the moral Governor of the world. How could he do less, seeing that all men
everywhere have sinned against him? Furthermore; that God commandeth all men
everywhere to repent argues the universality of creature responsibility. But
this scripture does not declare that it is God's pleasure to "give
repentance" Acts 5:31 to all men everywhere. That the apostle Paul did not
believe God gave repentance to every soul is clear from his words in 2 Tim.
2:25 — "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God
peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."
Again, we are
asked, if God has "ordained" only certain ones unto eternal life,
then why do we read that he "will have all men to be saved, and come to
the knowledge of the truth" 1 Tim. 2:4? The reply is, that the words
"all" and "all men", like the term "world", are
often used in a general and relative sense. Let the reader carefully examine
the following passages: Mark 1:5; John 6:45, 8:2; Acts 21:28, 22:15; 2 Cor. 3:2
etc., and he will find full proof of our assertion. 1 Tim. 2:4 cannot teach
that God wills the salvation of all mankind, or otherwise all mankind would be
saved — "What his soul desireth
even that he doeth" Job 23:13!
Again; we are
asked, Does not Scripture declare, again and again, that God is no
"respecter of persons"? We answer, it certainly does, and God's
electing grace proves it. The seven sons of Jesse, though older and physically
superior to David, are passed by, while the young shepherd boy is exalted to
Israel's throne. The scribes and lawyers pass unnoticed, and ignorant fishermen
are chosen to be the apostles of the Lamb. Divine truth is hidden from the wise
and prudent and is revealed to babes instead. The great majority of the wise
and noble are ignored, while the weak, the base, the despised, are called and
saved. Harlots and publicans are sweetly compelled to come in to the gospel
feast, while self-righteous Pharisees are suffered to perish in their
immaculate morality. Truly, God is "no respecter" of persons or he
would not have saved me.
That the
Doctrine of Reprobation is a "hard saying" — to the carnal mind is
readily acknowledged — yet, is it any "harder" than that of eternal
punishment? That it is clearly taught in Scripture we have sought to
demonstrate, and it is not for us to pick and choose from the truths revealed
in God's Word. Let those who are inclined to receive those doctrines which
commend themselves to their judgment, and who reject those which they cannot fully
understand, remember those scathing words of our Lord's, "O fools, and
slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken" Lu 24:25:
fools because slow of heart; slow of heart, not dull of head!
Once more we
would avail ourselves of the language of Calvin: "But, as I have hitherto
only recited such things as are delivered without any obscurity or ambiguity in
the Scriptures, let persons who hesitate not to brand with ignominy those
Oracles of Heaven, beware what kind of opposition they make. For, if they
pretend ignorance, with a desire to be commended for their modesty, what
greater instance of pride can be conceived, than to oppose one little word to
the authority of God! as, `It appears otherwise to me,' or `I would rather not
meddle with this subject.' But if they openly censure, what will they gain by
their puny attempts against heaven? Their petulance, indeed, is no novelty; for
in all ages
there have
been impious and profane men, who have virulently opposed this doctrine. But
they shall feel the truth of what the Spirit long ago declared by the mouth of
David, that God `is clear when he judgeth' Psa. 51:4. David obliquely hints at
the madness of men who display such excessive presumption amidst their
insignificance, as not only to dispute against God, but to arrogate to
themselves the power of condemning him. In the meantime, he briefly suggests,
that God is unaffected by all the blasphemies which they discharge against
heaven, but that he dissipates the mists of calumny, and illustriously displays
his righteousness; our faith, also, being founded on the Divine Word, and
therefore, superior to all the world, from its exaltation looks down with
contempt upon those mists" (John Calvin).
In closing
this chapter we propose to quote from the writings of some of the standard
theologians since the days of the
Reformation,
not that we would buttress our own statements by an appeal to human authority,
however venerable or
ancient, but
in order to show that what we have advanced in these pages is no novelty of the
twentieth century, no heresy
of the
"latter days" but, instead, a doctrine which has been definitely
formulated and commonly taught by many of the most
pious and
scholarly students of Holy Writ.
"Predestination
we call the decree of God, by which he has determined in himself, what he would
have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created
with a similar destiny: but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal
damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other
of these ends, we say, he is predestinated either to life or to death" —
from John Calvin's "Institutes" (1536 A.D.) Book III, Chapter XXI
entitled "Eternal Election, or God's Predestination of Some to Salvation
and of Others to Destruction."
We ask our
readers to mark well the above language. A perusal of it should show that what
the present writer has advanced in this chapter is not
"Hyper-Calvinism" but real Calvinism, pure and simple. Our purpose in
making this remark is to show that those who, not acquainted with Calvin's
writings, in their ignorance condemn as ultra-Calvanism that which is simply a
reiteration of what Calvin himself taught — a reiteration because that prince
of theologians as well as his humble debtor have both found this doctrine in
the Word of God itself.
Martin Luther
is his most excellent work "De Servo Arbitrio" (Free Will a Slave),
wrote: "All things whatsoever arise from, and depend upon, the divine
appointments, whereby it was preordained who should receive the Word of Life,
and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins, and who
should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who should be
condemned. This is the very truth which razes the doctrine of free will from its
foundations, to wit, that God's eternal love of some men and hatred of others
is immutable and cannot be reversed."
John Fox,
whose Book of Martyrs was once the best known work in the English language
(alas that it is not so today, when Roman Catholicism is sweeping upon us like
a great destructive tidal wave!), wrote — "Predestination is the eternal
decreement of God, purposed before in himself, what should befall all men,
either to salvation, or damnation".
The
"Larger Westminster Catechism" (1688) — adopted by the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church — declares, "God, by an eternal and
immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace,
to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory, and in Christ
hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof; and also,
according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will
(whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favour as he pleases), hath passed by, and
foreordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to for their sin inflicted, to
the praise of the glory of his justice".
John Bunyan,
author of "The Pilgrim's Progress", wrote a whole volume on
"Reprobation". From it we make one brief extract: — "Reprobation
is before the person cometh into the world, or hath done good or evil. This is
evidenced by Rom. 9:11. Here you find twain in their mother's womb, and both
receiving their destiny, not only before they had done good or evil, but before
they were in a capacity to do it, they being yet unborn — their destiny, I say,
the one unto, the other not unto the blessing of eternal life; the one elect,
the other reprobate; the one chosen, the other refused". In his
"Sighs from Hell", John Bunyan also wrote: "They that do continue
to reject and slight the Word of God are such, for the most part, as are
ordained to be damned".
Commenting
upon Rom. 9:22, "What if God willing to show his wrath, and to make his
power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction" Jonathan Edwards (Vol. 4, p. 306 — 1743 A.D.) says, "How
awful doth the majesty of God appear in the dreadfulness of his anger! This we
may learn to be one end of the damnation of the wicked."
Augustus
Toplady, author of "Rock of Ages" and other sublime hymns, wrote:
"God, from all eternity decreed to leave some of Adam's fallen posterity
in their sins, and to exclude them from the participation of Christ and his
benefits". And again; "We, with the Scriptures, assert: That there is
a predestination of some particular persons to life, for the praise of the
glory of divine grace; and also a predestination of other particular persons to
death for the glory of divine justice —
which death of
punishment they shall inevitably undergo, and that justly, on account of their
sins".
George
Whitefield, that stalwart of the eighteenth century, used by God in blessing to
so many, wrote: "Without doubt, the doctrine of election and reprobation
must stand or fall together ... I frankly acknowledge I believe the doctrine of
Reprobation, that God intends to give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only
to a certain number; and that the rest of mankind, after the fall of Adam,
being justly left of God to continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal
death which is its proper wages".
"Fitted
to destruction" Rom. 9:22. After declaring this phrase admits of two
interpretations, Dr. Hodge — perhaps the best known and most widely read
commentator on Romans — says, "The other interpretation assumes that the
reference is to God and that the Greek word for 'fitted' has its full
participle force; prepared (by God) for destruction." This, says Dr.
Hodge, "Is adopted not only by the majority of Augustinians, but also by
many Lutherans."
Were it
necessary we are prepared to give quotations from the writings of Wycliffe,
Huss, Ridley, Hooper, Cranmer, Ussher, John Trapp, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas
Manton (Chaplain to Cromwell), John Owen, Witsius, John Gill (predecessor of
Spurgeon), and a host of others. We mention this simply to show that many of
the most eminent saints in bygone days, the men most widely used of God, held
and taught this doctrine which is so bitterly hated in these last days, when
men will no longer "endure sound doctrine"; hated by men of lofty
pretensions, but who, notwithstanding their boasted orthodoxy and much
advertised piety, are not worthy to unfasten the shoes of the faithful and
fearless servants of
God of other
days.
"O the
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable
are his judgments and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of
the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him, and
it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to
him, are all things: to whom be glory forever, Amen" Rom. 11:33-36. {a}
{a} "Of him" — his will is the
origin of all existence; "through" or "by him" — he is the
Creator and Controller of all;
"to Him" — all things promote his glory in their final end.