Arminianism

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
By Loraine Boettner

Chapter I

Introduction

The purpose of this book is not to set forth a new system of
theological thought, but to give a re-statement to that great system
which is known as the Reformed Faith or Calvinism, and to show that
this is beyond all doubt the teaching of the Bible and of reason.

The doctrine of Predestination receives comparatively little attention
in our day and it is very imperfectly understood even by those who are
supposed to hold it most loyally. It is a doctrine, however, which is
contained in the creeds of most evangelical churches and which has had
a remarkable influence both in Church and State. The official standards
of the various branches of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in
Europe and America are thoroughly Calvinistic. The Baptist and
Congregational Churches, although they have no formulated creeds, have
in the main been Calvinistic if we may judge from the writings and
teachings of their representative theologians. The great free church of
Holland and almost all the churches of Scotland are Calvinistic. The
Established Church of England and her daughter, the Episcopal Church of
America, have a Calvinistic creed in the Thirty-nine Articles. The
Whitefield Methodists in Wales to this day bear the name of
“Calvinistic Methodists.”

Among the past and present advocates of this doctrine are to be found
some of the world’s greatest and wisest men. It was taught not only by
Calvin, but by Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon (although Melanchthon later
retreated toward the Semi-Pelagian position), by Bullinger, Bucer, and
all of the outstanding leaders in the Reformation. While differing on
some other points they agreed on this doctrine of Predestination and
taught it with emphasis. Luther’s chief work, “The Bondage of the
Will,” shows that he went into the doctrine as heartily as did Calvin
himself. He even asserted it with more warmth and proceeded to much
harsher lengths in defending it than Calvin ever did. And the Lutheran
Church today as judged by the Formula of Concord holds the doctrine of
Predestination in a modified form. The Puritans in England and those
who early settled in America, as well as the Covenanters in Scotland
and the Huguenots in France, were thorough-going Calvinists; and it is
little credit to historians in general that this fact has been so
largely passed over in silence. This faith was for a time held by the
Roman Catholic Church, and at no time has that church ever openly
repudiated it. Augustine’s doctrine of Predestination set against him
all the half-hearted elements in the Church and arrayed him against
every man who belittled the sovereignty of God. He overcame them, and
the doctrine of Predestination entered the belief of the universal
Church. The great majority of the creeds of historic Christendom have
set forth the doctrines of Election, Predestination, and final
Perseverance, as will readily be seen by any one who will make even a
cursory study of the subject. On the other hand Arminianism existed for
centuries only as a heresy on the outskirts of true religion, and in
fact it was not championed by an organized Christian church until the
year 1784, at which time it was incorporated into the system of
doctrine of the Methodist Church in England. The great theologians of
history, Augustine, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Zanchius, Owen,
Whitefield, Toplady, and in more recent times Hodge, Dabney,
Cunningham, Smith, Shedd, Warfield, and Kuyper, held this doctrine and
taught it with force. That they have been the lights and ornaments of
the highest type of Christianity will be admitted by practically all
Protestants. Furthermore, their works on this great subject have never
been answered. Then, too, when we stop to consider that among
non-Christian religions Mohammedanism has so many millions who believe
in some kind of Predestination, that the doctrine of Fatalism has been
held in some form or other in several heathen countries, and that the
mechanistic and deterministic philosophies have exerted such great
influences in England, Germany, and America, we see that this doctrine
is at least worthy of careful study.

From the time of the Reformation up until about one hundred years ago
these doctrines were boldly set forth by the great majority of the
ministers and teachers in the Protestant churches; but today we find
far the greater majority holding and teaching other systems. It is only
rarely that we now come across those who can be called “Calvinists
without reserve.” We may quite appropriately apply to our own churches
the words of Toplady in regard to the Church of England: “Time has been
when the Calvinistic doctrines were considered and defended as the
Palladium of our Established Church; by her bishops and clergy, by the
universities, and the whole body of the laity. It was (during the
reigns of Edward VI, Queen Elizabeth, James I, and the greater part of
Charles I) as difficult to meet with a clergyman who did not preach the
doctrines of the Church of England, as it is now to find one who does.
We have generally forsaken the principles of the Reformation, and
Ichabod, or ‘the glory is departed,’ has been written on most of our
pulpits and church-doors ever since.” [1]

The tendency in our enlightened age is to look upon Calvinism as a
worn-out and obsolete creed. At the beginning of his splendid article
on “The Reformed Faith in the Modern World,” Prof. F. E. Hamilton says,
“It seems to be tacitly assumed by a large number of people in the
Presbyterian Church today that Calvinism has been outgrown in religious
circles. In fact, the average church member, or even minister of the
gospel, is inclined to look upon a person who declares that he believes
in Predestination, with a glance of amused tolerance. It seems
incredible to them that there should exist such an intellectual
curiosity as a real Calvinist, in an age of enlightenment like the
present. As for seriously examining the arguments for Calvinism, the
idea never enters their heads. It is deemed as out of date as the
Inquisition, or the idea of a fiat world, and is looked upon as one of
the fantastic schemes of thought that men held before the age of modern
science.” Because of this present day attitude toward Calvinism, and
because of the general lack of information concerning these doctrines,
we regard the subject of this book as one of great importance.

It was Calvin who wrought out this system of theological thought with
such logical clearness and emphasis that it has ever since borne his
name. He did not, of course, originate the system but only set forth
what appeared to him to shine forth so clearly from the pages of Holy
Scripture. Augustine had taught the essentials of the system a thousand
years before Calvin was born, and the whole body of the leaders of the
Reformation movement taught the same. But it was given to Calvin with
his deep knowledge of Scripture, his keen intellect and systematizing
genius, to set forth and defend these truths more clearly and ably than
had ever been done before.

We call this system of doctrine “Calvinism,” and accept the term
“Calvinist” as our badge of honor; yet names are mere conveniences. “We
might,” says Warburton, “quite as appropriately, and with equally as
much reason, call gravitation ‘Newtonism,’ because the principles of
gravitation were first dearly demonstrated by the great philosopher
Newton. Men had been fully conversant with the facts of gravitation for
long ages before Newton was born. These facts had indeed been visible
from the first days of creation, inasmuch as gravitation was one of the
laws which God ordained for the governing of the universe. But the
principles of gravitation were not fully known, and the far-reaching
effects of its power and influence were not understood until they were
discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. So, too, was it with what men call
Calvinism. The inherent principles of it had been in existence for long
ages before Calvin was born. They had indeed been visible as patent
factors in the world’s history from the time of man’s creation. But
inasmuch as it was Calvin who first formulated these principles into a
more or less complete system, that system, or creed, if you will, and
likewise those principles which are embodied in it, came to bear his
name.” [2]

We may add further that the names Calvinist, Lutheran, Puritan,
Pilgrim, Methodist, Baptist, and even the name Christian, were
originally nicknames. But usage has established their validity and
their meaning is well understood.

The quality which gave such force to Calvin’s teaching was his close
adherence to the Bible as an inspired and authoritative book. He has
been referred to as preeminently the biblical theologian of his age.
Where the Bible led, there he went; where it failed him, there he
stopped short. This refusal to go beyond what is written, coupled with
a ready acceptance of what the Bible did teach, gave an air of finality
and positiveness to his declarations which made them offensive to his
critics. Because of his keen insight and power of logical development
he has often been referred to as merely a speculative theologian. That
he was a speculative genius of the first order is, of course, not to be
denied; and in the cogency of his logical analysis he possessed a
weapon which made him terrible to his enemies. But it was not on these
gifts that he depended primarily when forming and developing his
theological system.

Calvin’s active and powerful intellect led him to sound the depths of
every subject which he touched. In his investigations about God and the
plan of redemption he went very far, penetrating into mysteries
concerning which the average man seldom if ever dreams. He brought to
light a side of Scripture which had as yet been very much in the shade
and stressed those deep truths which in the ages preceding the
Reformation had comparatively escaped notice in the Church. He brought
to light forgotten doctrines of the apostle Paul, and fastened them in
their full and complete sense upon one great branch of the Christian
Church.

This doctrine of Predestination has perhaps raised a greater storm of
opposition, and has doubtless been more misrepresented and caricatured,
than any other doctrine in the Scriptures. “To mention it before some,”
says Warburton, “is like shaking the proverbial red flag before an
enraged bull. It arouses the fiercest passions of their nature, and
brings forth a torrent of abuse and calumny. But, because men have
fought against it, or because they hate it, or perhaps misunderstand
it, is no reasonable or logical cause why we should turn the doctrine
adrift, or cast it behind our backs. The real question, the
all-important question, is not: How do men receive it? but, Is it
true?” [3]

One reason why many people, even supposedly educated people, are so
quick to reject the doctrine of Predestination is because of pure
ignorance of what the doctrine really is and of what the Bible teaches
in regard to it. This ignorance is not at all surprising when one
considers the almost complete lack of Bible training in our day. A
careful study of the Bible would convince many people that it is a very
different book than they assume it to be. The tremendous influence
which this doctrine has exerted in the history of Europe and America
should at least entitle it to a respectful hearing. Furthermore, we
submit that according to all the laws of reason and logic a person has
no right to deny the truth of a doctrine without first having studied
in an unprejudiced manner the evidence on both sides. This is a
doctrine which deals with some of the most profound truths revealed in
Scripture and it will abundantly repay careful study on the part of
Christian people. If any are disposed to reject it without first making
a careful study of its claims, let them not forget that it has
commanded the firm belief of multitudes of the wisest and best men that
have ever lived, and that there must, therefore, be strong reasons in
favor of its truth.

Perhaps a few words of caution should be given here to the effect that
while the doctrine of Predestination is a great and blessed Scripture
truth and a fundamental doctrine of several churches, it must never be
looked upon as the sum and substance of the Reformed Faith. As Dr.
Kuyper has said, “It is a mistake to discover the specific character of
Calvinism in the doctrine of Predestination, or in the authority of
Scripture. For Calvinism all these are logical consequences, not the
point of departure–foliage bearing witness to the luxuriousness of its
growth, but not the root from which it is sprouted.” If the doctrine is
detached from its natural association with other truths and exhibited
alone, the effect is exaggerated. The system is then distorted and
misrepresented. A statement of any principle, in order to be true, must
present it in harmony with all the other elements of the system of
which it forms a part. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a
balanced statement of this system as a whole, and it gives due
prominence to those other doctrines, such as the Trinity, the Deity of
Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the Inspiration of the
Scriptures, Miracles, the Atonement, Resurrection, the personal return
of Christ, and so forth. Furthermore, we do not deny that the Arminians
hold many and important truths. But we do hold that a full and complete
exposition of the Christian system can be given only on the basis of
the truth as set forth in the Calvinistic system.

In the minds of most people the doctrine of Predestination and
Calvinism are practically synonymous terms. This. however, should not
be the case, and the too close identification of the two has doubtless
done much to prejudice many people against the Calvinistic system. The
same is true in regard to a too close identification of Calvinism and
the “Five Points,” as will be shown later. While Predestination and the
Five Points are all essential elements of Calvinism, they by no means
constitute its whole.

The doctrine of Predestination has been made the subject of almost
endless discussion, much of which, it must be admitted, was for the
purpose of softening its outlines or of explaining it away. “The
consideration of this great doctrine,” says Cunningham, “runs up into
the most profound and inaccessible subjects that can occupy the minds
of men,–the nature and attributes, the purposes and the actings of the
infinite and incomprehensible Jehovah,–viewed especially in their
bearings upon the everlasting destinies of His intelligent creatures.
The peculiar nature of the subject certainly demands, in right reason,
that it should ever be approached and considered with the profoundest
humility, caution, and reverence, as it brings us into contact, on the
one side, with a subject so awful and overwhelming as the everlasting
misery of an innumerable multitude of our fellow men. Many men have
discussed the subject in this spirit, but many also have indulged in
much presumptuous and irreverent speculation regarding it. There is
probably no subject that has occupied more of the attention of
intelligent men in every age. It has been most fully discussed in all
of its bearings, philosophical, theological, and practical; and if
there be any subject of speculation with respect to which we are
warranted in saying that it has been exhausted, it is this.

“Some, at least, of the topics comprehended under this general head
have been discussed by almost every philosopher of eminence in ancient
as well as in modern times. * * * All that the highest ability,
ingenuity, and acuteness can effect, has been brought to bear upon the
discussion of this subject; and the difficulties attaching to it have
never been fully solved, and we are well warranted in saying that they
never will, unless God gives us either a fuller revelation or greatly
enlarged capacities,–although, perhaps, it would be more correct to
say that, from the very nature of the case, a finite being can never
fully comprehend it since this would imply that he could fully
comprehend the infinite mind.” [4]

In the development of this book much use has been made of other books
in order that this one may contain the very cream and quintessence of
the best authors on the subject. Consequently many of the arguments
found here are from men very superior to the present writer. Indeed,
when he glances at the whole he is inclined to say with a celebrated
French writer, “I have culled a bouquet of varied flowers from men’s
gardens, and nothing is my own but the string that binds them.” Yet
much is his own, especially as regards the organization and arrangement
of materials.

Throughout this book the terms “predestination” and “foreordination”
are used as exact synonyms, the choice being deterrained only by taste.
If a distinction be desired the word “foreordination” can perhaps
better be used where the thing spoken of is an event in history or in
nature, while “predestination” can refer mainly to the final destiny of
persons. The Scripture quotations have been made from the American
Standard Version of the Bible rather than from the King James Version
since the former is more accurate.

The author wishes particularly to thank Dr. Samuel G. Craig, Editor of
CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Dr. Frank H. Stevenson, President of the Board of
Trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary, Dr. Cornelius Van Til,
Professor of Apologetics in Westminster Theological Seminary, Dr. C. W.
Hodge, Professor of Systematic Theology in Princeton Theological
Seminary, under whose supervision this material in much shorter form
was originally prepared, and Rev. Henry Atherton, General Secretary of
the Sovereign Grace Union, London, England, for valuable assistance.

This book, we repeat, is designed to set forth and defend the Reformed
Faith, commonly known as Calvinism. It is not directed against any
particular denomination, but against Arminianism in general. The author
is a member of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., but is well aware of
the radical departure which the rank and file of Presbyterians have
made from their own creed. The book is sent forth with the hope that
those who profess to hold the Reformed Faith may have a better
understanding of the great truths which are here treated and may value
their heritage more highly; and that those who have not known this
system, or who have opposed it, may be convinced of its truth and come
to love it.

The question which faces us then, is, Has God from all eternity
foreordained all things which come to pass? If so, what evidence do we
have to that effect. and how is the fact consistent with the free
agency of rational creatures and with His own perfections?
__________________________________________________________________

[1] Preface to Zanchius’ Predestination, p. 16.

[2] Calvinism, p. 2.

[3] Calvinism, p. 23.

[4] Cunningham, Historical Theology, II, pp. 418, 419.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter II

Statement of the Doctrine

In the Westminster Confession, which sets forth the beliefs of the
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches and which is the most perfect
expression of the Reformed Faith, we read: “God from all eternity did
by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and
unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither
is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the
creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather established.” And further, “Although God knows
whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet
hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as
that which would come to pass upon such conditions.”

This doctrine of Predestination represents the purpose of God as
absolute and unconditional, independent of the whole finite creation,
and as originating solely in the eternal counsel of His will. God is
seen as the great and mighty King who has appointed the course of
nature and who directs the course of history even down to its minutest
details. His decree is eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, and
sovereign. It extends not merely to the course of the physical world
but to every event in human history from the creation to the judgment,
and includes all the activities of saints and angels in heaven and of
reprobates and demons in hell. It embraces the whole scope of
creaturely existence, through time and eternity, comprehending at once
all things that ever were or will be in their causes, conditions,
successions, and relations. Everything outside of God Himself is
included in this all-embracing decree, and that very naturally since
all other beings owe their existence and continuance in existence to
His creative and sustaining power. It provides a providential control
under which all things are hastening to the end of God’s determining;
and the goal is,

“One far-off divine event

Toward which the whole creation moves.

Since the finite creation through its whole range exists as a medium
through which God manifests His glory, and since it is absolutely
dependent on Him, it of itself could originate no conditions which
would limit or defeat the manifestation of that glory. From all
eternity God has purposed to do just exactly what He is doing. He is
the sovereign Ruler of the universe and “does according to His will in
the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can
stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou?” Daniel 4:35. Since
the universe had its origin in God and depends on Him for its continued
existence it must be, in all its parts and at all times, subject to His
control so that nothing can come to pass contrary to what He expressly
decrees or permits. Thus the eternal purpose is represented as an act
of sovereign predestination or foreordination, and unconditioned by any
subsequent fact or change in time. Hence it is represented as being the
basis of the divine foreknowledge of all future events, and not
conditioned by that foreknowledge or by anything originated by the
events themselves.

The Reformed theologians logically and consistently applied to the
spheres of creation and providence those great principles which were
later set forth in the Westminster Standards. They saw the hand of God
in every event in all the history of mankind and in all the workings of
physical nature so that the world was the complete realization in time
of the eternal ideal. The world as a whole and in all its parts and
movements and changes was brought into a unity by the governing,
all-pervading, all-harmonizing activity of the divine will, and its
purpose was to manifest the divine glory. While their conception was
that of a divine ordering of the whole course of history to the veriest
detail, they were especially concerned with its relation to man’s
salvation. Calvin, the brilliant and systematic theologian of the
Reformation, put the matter thus: “Predestination we call the eternal
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 death 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.” [5]

That Luther was as zealous for absolute predestination as was Calvin is
shown in his commentary on Romans, where he wrote: “All things whatever
arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was
foreordained 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; and who should be justified and who should be
condemned.” And Melanchthon, his close friend and fellow-laborer, says:
“All things turn out according to divine predestination; not only the
works we do outwardly, but even the thoughts we think inwardly”; and
again, “There is no such thing as chance, or fortune; nor is there a
readier way to gain the fear of God, and to put our whole trust in Him,
than to be thoroughly versed in the doctrine of Predestination.”

“Order is heaven’s first law.” From the divine viewpoint there is
unbroken order and progress from the first beginnings of the creation
to the end of the world and the ushering in of the kingdom of heaven in
all its glory. The divine purpose and plan is nowhere defeated nor
interrupted; that which in many cases appears to us to be defeat is not
really such but only appears to be, because our finite and imperfect
nature does not permit us to see all the parts in the whole nor the
whole in all its parts. If at one glance we could take in “the mighty
spectacle of the natural world and the complex drama of human history,”
we should see the world as one harmonious unit manifesting the glorious
perfections of God.

“Though the world seems to run at random,” says Bishop, “and affairs to
be huddled together in blind confusion and rude disorder, yet, God sees
and knows the concatenation of all causes and effects, and so governs
them that He makes a perfect harmony out of all those seeming jarrings
and discords. It is most necessary that we should have our hearts well
established in the firm and unwavering belief of this truth, that
whatever comes to pass, be it good or evil, we may look up to the hand
and disposal of all, to God. In respect of God, there is nothing casual
nor contingent in the world. If a master should send a servant to a
certain place and command him to stay there till such a time, and,
presently after, should send another servant to the same place, the
meeting of these two is wholly casual in respect to themselves, but
ordained and foreseen by the master who sent them. They fall out
unexpectedly as to us, but not so as to God. He foresees and He
appoints all the vicissitudes of things.” [6]

The psalmist exclaimed, “O Jehovah our Lord, How excellent is thy name
in all the earth!” And the writer of Ecclesiastes says, “He hath made
everything beautiful in its time.” In the vision which the prophet
Isaiah saw, the seraphim sang, “Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts:
The whole earth is full of His glory.” When seen from this divine
view-point every event in the course of human affairs in all ages and
in all nations has, no matter how insignificant it may appear to us,
its exact place in the development of the eternal plan. It has
relations with preceding causes and exerts an ever widening influence
through its effects so that it is related to the whole system of things
and has its individual part in maintaining the perfect equilibrium of
this world-order. Many instances might be given to show that events of
the greatest importance have often depended upon what at the time
appeared to be the most fortuitious and trivial events. The
inter-relation and connection of events is such that if one of these
were to be omitted or modified, all that follows soon would be modified
or prevented. Hence the certainty that the divine administration rests
on the foreordination of God extending to all events both great and
small. And, strictly speaking, no event is really small; each one has
its exact place in the divine plan, and some are only relatively
greater than others. The course of history, then, is infinitely
complex, yet a unit in the sight of God. This truth, together with the
reason for it, is very beautifully summed up in the Shorter Catechism
which states that, “The decrees of God are, His eternal purpose,
according to the counsel of His will, whereby for His own glory, He
hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.”

Dr. Abraham Kuyper, of Holland, who is recognized as one of the
outstanding Calvinistic theologians in recent years, has given us some
valuable thought in the following paragraph: “The determination of the
existence of all things to be created, or what is to be camellia or
buttercup, nightingale or crow, hart or swine, and equally among men,
the determination of our own persons, whether one is to be born as boy
or girl, rich or poor, dull or clever, white or colored or even as Abel
and Cain, is the most tremendous predestination conceivable in heaven
or on earth; and still we see it taking place before our eyes every
day, and we ourselves are subject to it in our entire personality; our
entire existence, our very nature, our position in life being entirely
dependent on it. This all-embracing predestination, the Calvinist
places, not in the hands of man, and still less in the hand of blind
natural force, but in the hand of Almighty God, sovereign Creator and
Possessor of heaven and earth; and it is in the figure of the potter
and the clay that Scripture has from the time of the prophets expounded
to us this all-dominating election. Election in creation, election in
providence, and so election also to eternal life; election in the realm
of grace as well as in the realm of nature.” [7]

We can have no adequate appreciation of this world-order until we see
it as one mighty system through which God is working out His plans.
Calvin’s clear and consistent theism gave him a keen sense of the
infinite majesty of the Almighty Person in whose hands all things lay,
and made him a very pronounced predestinarian. In this doctrine of the
unconditional and eternal purpose of the omniscient and omnipotent God,
he found the program of the history of the fall and redemption of the
human race. He ventured boldly but reverently upon the brink of that
abyss of speculation where all human knowledge is lost in mystery and
adoration.

The Reformed Faith, then, offers us a great God who is really the
sovereign Ruler of the Universe. “Its grand principle,” says Bayne, “is
the contemplation of the universe of God revealed in Christ. In all
places, in all times, from eternity to eternity, Calvinism sees God.”
Our age, with its emphasis on democracy, doesn’t like this view, and
perhaps no other age liked it less. The tendency today is to exalt man
and to give God only a very limited part in the affairs of the world.
As Dr. A. A. Hodge has said, “The new theology, asserting the
narrowness of the old, is discarding the foreordination of Jehovah as a
worn-out figment of the schools, discredited by the advanced culture of
today. This is not the first time that the owls, mistaking the shadow
of a passing eclipse for their native night, have prematurely hooted at
the eagles, convinced that what is invisible to them cannot possibly
exist.” [8]

This, in general, is the broad conception of predestination as it has
been held by the great theologians of the Presbyterian and Reformed
Churches.

Foreordination is explicitly stated in Scripture.

Acts 4:27, 28: For of a truth in this city against thy holy servant
Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the
Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do
whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel foreordained to come to pass.

Ephesians 1:5: Having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through
Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

Ephesians 1:11: In whom also we were made a heritage, having been
foreordained according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things
after the counsel of His will.

Romans 8:29, 30: For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be
conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among
many brethren: and whom He foreordained, them He also called: and whom
He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also
glorified.

1 Corinthians 2:7: But we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the
wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds
unto our glory.

Acts 2:23: Him (Jesus) being delivered up by the determinate counsel
and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hands of lawless men did crucify
and slay.

Acts 13:48: And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and
glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life
believed.

Ephesians 2:10: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for
good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.

Romans 9:23: That He might make known the riches of His glory upon the
vessels of mercy, which He afore prepared unto glory.

Psalm 139:16: Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy
book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was none of them.
__________________________________________________________________

[5] Institutes, Book III, Ch. XXI, sec. 5.

[6] Quoted by Toplady in Preface to Zanchius’ Predestination.

[7] Lectures on Calvinism, p. 272.

[8] Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, p. 158.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter III

God Has a Plan

It is unthinkable that a God of infinite wisdom and power would create
a world without a definite plan for that world. And because God is thus
infinite His plan must extend to every detail of the world’s existence.
If we could see the world in all its relations, past, present, and
future, we would see that it is following a predetermined course with
exact precision. Among created things we may search where we will, as
far as the microscope and the telescope will enable the eye to see, we
find organization everywhere. Large forms resolve themselves into
parts, and these parts in their turn are but organized of other parts
down as far as we can see into infinity.

Even man, who is but the creature of a day and subject to all kinds of
errors, develops a plan before he acts; and a man who acts without
design or purpose is accounted foolish. Before we make a trip or
undertake a piece of work all of us set our goal and then work to
attain that goal in so far as we are able. Regardless of how some
people may oppose Predestination in theory, all of us in our every-day
lives are practical predestinarians. As E. W. Smith says, a wise man
“first determines upon the end he desires to attain, and then upon the
best means of attaining it. Before the architect begins his edifice, he
makes his drawings and forms his plans, even to the minutest details of
construction. In the architect’s brain the building stands complete in
all its parts before a stone is laid. So with the merchant, the lawyer,
the farmer, and all rational and intelligent men. Their activity is
along the line of previously formed purposes, the fulfillment, so far
as their finite capacities will allow, Of preconceived plans.” [9]

The larger our enterprise is, the more important it is that we shall
have a plan; otherwise all our work ends in failure. One would be
considered mentally deranged who undertook to build a ship, or a
railroad, or to govern a nation without a plan. We are told that before
Napoleon began the invasion of Russia he had a plan worked out in
detail, showing what line of march each division of his army was to
follow, where it was to be at a certain time, what equipment and
provisions it was to have, etc. Whatever was wanting in that plan was
due to the limitations of human power and wisdom. Had Napoleon’s
foresight been perfect and his control of events absolute, his plan–or
we may say, his foreordination–would have extended to every act of
every soldier who made that march.

And if this is true of man, how much more is it true of God! “A
universe without decrees,” says A. J. Gordon. “would be as irrational
and appalling as would be an express train driving on in the darkness
without headlight or engineer, and with no certainty that the next
moment it might not plunge into the abyss.” We cannot conceive of God
bringing into existence a universe without a plan which would extend to
all that would be done in that universe. As the Scriptures teach that
God’s providential control extends to all events, even the most minute,
they thereby teach that His plan is equally comprehensive. It is one of
His perfections that He has the best possible plan, and that He
conducts the course of history to its appointed end. And to admit that
He has a plan which He carries out is to admit Predestination. “God’s
plan is shown in its effectuation to be one,” says Dabney. “Cause is
linked with effect, and what was effect becomes cause; the influences
of events on events interlace with each other, and descend in widening
streams to subsequent events; so that the whole complex result is
through every part. As astronomers suppose that the removal of one
planet from our system would modify more or less the balance and orbits
of all the rest, so the failure of one event in this plan would derange
the whole, directly or indirectly.” [10]

If God had not foreordained the course of events but waited until some
undetermined condition was or was not fulfilled, His decrees could be
neither eternal nor immutable. We know, however, that He is incapable
of mistake, and that He cannot be surprised by any unforeseen
inconveniences. His kingdom is in the heavens and He rules over all.
His plan must, therefore, include every event in the entire sweep of
history.

That even the small events have their place in this plan. and that they
must be as they are, is easily seen. All of us know of certain “chance
happenings” which have actually changed the course of our lives. The
effects of these extend throughout all succeeding history in
ever-widening influences, causing other “chance happenings.” It is said
that the quacking of some geese once saved Rome. Whether historically
true or not it will serve as a good illustration. Had not the geese
awakened the guards who gave the alarm and aroused the defending army,
Rome would have fallen and the course of history from that time on
would have been radically different. Had those geese remained silent
who can imagine what empires might have been in existence today, or
where the centers of culture might have been? During a battle a bullet
misses the general by only an inch. His life is spared, he goes on
commanding his troops, wins a decisive victory, and is made the chief
ruler of his country for many years,–as was the case with George
Washington. Yet what a different course history would have taken had
the soldier on the other side aimed the slightest trifle higher or
lower! The great Chicago fire of 1871, which destroyed more than I half
of the city, was started, we are told, when a cow kicked over a
lantern. How different would have been the history of Chicago if that
one motion had been slightly different! “The control of the greatest
must include the control of the less, for not only are great things
made up of little things, but history shows how the veriest trifles are
continually proving the pivots on which momentous events revolve. The
persistence of a spider nerved a despairing man to fresh exertions
which shaped a nation’s future. The God who predestinated the course of
Scotch history must have planned and presided over the movements of
that tiny insect that saved Robert Bruce from despair.” [11] Examples
of this kind could be multiplied indefinitely.

The Pelagian denies that God has a plan; the Arminian says that God has
a general but not a specific plan; but the Calvinist says that God has
a specific plan which embraces all events in all ages. In recognizing
that the eternal God has an eternal plan in which is predetermined
every event that comes to pass, the Calvinist simply recognizes that
God is God, and frees Him from all human limitations. The Scriptures
represent God as a person, like other persons in that His acts are
purposeful, but unlike other persons in that He is all-wise in His
planning and all-powerful in His performing. They see the universe as
the product of His creative power, and as the theater in which are
displayed His glorious perfections, and which must in all its form and
all its history, down to the least detail, correspond with His purpose
in making it.

In a very illuminating article on “Predestination,” Dr. Benjamin B.
Warfield, who in the opinion of the present writer has emerged as the
outstanding theologian since John Calvin, tells us that the writers of
Scripture saw the divine plan as “broad enough to embrace the whole
universe of things, and minute enough to concern itself with the
smallest details, and actualizing itself with inevitable certainty in
every event that comes to pass.” “In the infinite wisdom of the Lord of
all the earth, each event falls with exact precision into its proper
place in this unfolding of His eternal plan; nothing, however small,
however strange, occurs without His ordering, or without its peculiar
fitness for its place in the working out of His purposes; and the end
of all shall be the manifestation of His glory, and accumulation of His
praise. This is the Old Testament (as well as the New Testament)
philosophy of the universe–a world-view which attains concrete unity
in an absolute decree, or purpose, or plan of which all that comes to
pass is the development in time.” [12]

The very essence of consistent theism is that God would have an exact
plan for the world, would foreknow the actions of all the creatures He
proposed to create, and through His all-inclusive providence would
control the whole system. If He fore-ordained only certain isolated
events, confusion both in the natural-world and in human affairs would
be introduced into the system and He would need to be constantly
developing new plans to accomplish what be desired. His government of
the world then would be a capricious patch work of new expedients He
would at best govern only in a general way, and would be ignorant of
much of the future. But no one with proper ideas of God believes that
He has to change His mind every few days to make room for unexpected
happenings which were not included in His original plan. If the
perfection of the divine plan be denied, no consistent stopping place
will be found short of atheism.

In the first place there was no necessity that God should create at
all. He acted with perfect freedom when He brought this world into
existence. When He did choose to create there was before Him an
infinite number of possible plans. But as a matter of fact we find that
He chose this particular one in which we now are. And since He knew
perfectly every event of every kind which would be involved in this
particular world-order, He very obviously predetermined every event
which would happen when He chose this plan. His choice of the plan, or
His making certain that the creation should be on this order, we call
His foreordination or His predestination.

Even the sinful acts of men are included in this plan. They are
foreseen, permitted, and have their exact place. They are controlled
and overruled for the divine glory. The crucifixion of Christ, which is
admittedly the worst crime in all human history, had, we are expressly
told, its exact and necessary place in the plan (Acts 2:23; 4:28). This
particular manner of redemption is not an expedient to which God was
driven after being defeated and disappointed by the fall of man. Rather
it is “according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ
Jesus our Lord,” Ephesians 3:11 . Peter tells us that Christ as a
sacrifice for sin was “foreknown indeed before the foundation of the
world,” 1 Peter 1:20. Believers were “chosen in Him before the
foundation of the world” (or from eternity), Ephesians 1:4. We are
saved not by our own temporary works, “but according to His purpose and
grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal,” 2
Timothy 1:9. And if the crucifixion of Christ, or His offering up
Himself as a sacrifice for sin, was in the eternal plan, then plainly
the fall of Adam and all other sins which made that sacrifice necessary
were in the plan, no matter how undesirable a part of that plan they
may have been.

History in all its details, even the most minute, is but the unfolding
of the eternal purposes of God. His decrees are not successively formed
as the emergency arises, but are all parts of one all-comprehending
plan, and we should never think of Him suddenly evolving a plan or
doing something which He had not thought of before.

The fact that the Scriptures often speak of one purpose of God as
dependent on the outcome of another or on the actions of men, is no
objection against this doctrine. The Scriptures are written in the
every-day language of men, and they often describe an act or a thing as
it appears to be, rather than as it really is. The Bible speaks of “the
four corners of the earth,” Isaiah 11:12, and of “the foundations of
the earth,” Psalm 104:5; yet no one understands this to mean that the
earth is square, or that it actually rests upon a foundation. We speak
of the sun rising and setting, yet we know that it is not the motion of
the sun but that of the earth as it turns over on its axis which causes
this phenomenon. Likewise, when the Scriptures speak of God repenting,
for instance, no one with proper ideas of God understands it to mean
that He sees He has pursued a wrong course and changes His mind. It
simply means that His action as seen from the human view-point appears
to be like that of a man who repents. In other places the Scriptures
speak of the hands, or arms, or eyes of God. These are what are known
as “anthropomorphisms,” instances in which God is referred to as if He
were a man. When the word “repent,” for instance, is used in its strict
sense God is said never to repent: “God is not a man, that He should
lie, Neither the son of man, that lie should repent.” Numbers 23:19;
and again, “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for He is
not a man, that He should repent,” 1 Samuel 15:29.

The contemplation of this great plan must redound to the praise of the
unsearchable wisdom and illimitable power of Him who devised and
executes it. And what can give the Christian more satisfaction and joy
than to know that the whole course of the world is ordered with
reference to the establishment of the Kingdom of heaven and the
manifestation of the Divine glory; and that he is one of the objects
upon which infinite love and mercy is to be lavished?

SCRIPTURE PROOF

1. God’s plan is eternal:

2 Timothy 1:9: (It is God) who saved us, and called us with a holy
calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose
and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal.

Psalm 33:11: The counsel of Jehovah standeth fast for ever, The
thoughts of His heart to all generations.

Isaiah 37:26: Hast thou not heard how I have done it long ago, and
formed it of ancient times?

Isaiah 46:9, 10: I am God and there is none like me; declaring the end
from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet
done.

2 Thessalonians 2:13: God chose you from the beginning unto salvation
in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Matthew 25:34: Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand,
Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world.

1 Peter 1:20: (Christ) who (as a sacrifice for sin) was foreknown
indeed before the foundation of the world.

Jeremiah 31:3: Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have
loved thee with an everlasting love.

Acts 15:18: Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.

Psalm 139:16: Thine eves did see mine unformed substance; And in thy
book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was none of them.

2. God’s plan is unchangeable:

James 1:17: Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above,
coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation,
neither shadow that is cast by turning.

Isaiah 14:24: Jehovah of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely, as I have
thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it
stand.

Isaiah 46:10, 11: My counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure:
. . . yea, I have spoken, and I will also bring it to pass; I have
purposed I will also do it.

Numbers 23:19: God is not a man, that He should lie, Neither the son of
man, that He should repent; Hath He said, and shall He not do it; Or
hath He spoken, and shall He not make It good?

Malachi 3:6: I, Jehovah, change not; therefore, ye, O sons of Jacob,
are not consumed.

3. The divine plan includes the future acts of men:

Daniel 2:28: But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and
He hath made known to the King Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the
latter days.

John 6:64: For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that
believed not, and who it was that should betray Him.

Matthew 20:18, 19: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man
shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall
condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him unto the Gentiles to mock,
and to scourge, and to crucify ; and the third day He shall be raised
up.

(All the Scripture prophecies which are predictions of future events
come under this heading. See especially: Micah 5:2; Cp. with Matthew
2:5, 6 and Luke 2:1-7; Psalm 22:18, Cp. John 19:24; Psalm 69:21, Cp.
John 19:29; Zechariah 12:10, Cp. John 19:37; Mark 14:30; Zechariah
11:12, 13 , Cp. Matthew 27:9, 10; Psalm 34:19, 20, Cp. John 19:33, 36.)

4. The divine plan Includes the fortuitous events or chance happenings:

Proverbs 16:33: The lot is cast Into the lap; But the whole disposing
thereof Is of Jehovah.

Jonah 1:7: So they cast lots, and the lot fell on Jonah.

Acts 1:24, 26: And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the
hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou has chosen . . .
And they cast lots for them; and the lot fell on Matthias.

Job 36:32: He covereth His hands with the lightning, And giveth it a
charge that it strike the mark.

1 Kings 22:28, 34: And Micaiah said, If thou (Ahab) return at all in
peace, Jehovah hath not spoken by me . . . And a certain man drew his
bow at a venture, and smote the king of Israel between the joints of
the armor.

Job 5:6: For affliction cometh not forth from the dust; Neither doth
trouble spring out of the ground.

Mark 14:30: And Jesus said unto him (Peter), Verily I say unto thee,
that thou, today, even this night. before the cock crow twice shall
deny me thrice.

(Cp. Genesis 37:28 and 45:5; Cp. 1 Samuel 9:15,16 and 9:5-10.)

5. Some events are recorded as fixed or inevitably certain:

Luke 22:22: For the Son of man indeed goeth, as it hath been
determined; but woe unto that man through whom He is betrayed.

John 8:20: These words spake He in the treasury, as He taught in the
temple; and no man took Him; because His hour was not yet come.

Matthew 24:36: But of that day and hour (the end of the world) knoweth
no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father
only.

Genesis 41:32: And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharoah, it is
because the thing is established of God, and He will shortly bring it
to pass.

Habakkuk 2:3: For the vision is yet for the appointed time, and it
hasteneth toward the end, and shall not lie; though it tarry, wait for
it; because it will surely come, it will not delay.

Luke 21:24: And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until
the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Jeremiah 15:2: And it shall come to pass when they say unto thee,
Whither shall we go forth? then thou shalt tell them. Thus saith
Jehovah: Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the
sword, to the sword; and such as are for famine, to the famine; and
such as are for captivity, to captivity.

Job 14:5: Seeing that his days are determined, And the number of his
months is with thee, And thou has appointed bounds that he cannot pass.

Jeremiah 27:7: And all nations shall serve him (Nebuchadnezzar), and
his son, and his son’s son, until the time of his own land come; and
then many nations and great kings shall make him their bondman.

6. Even the sinful acts of men are included in the plan and are
overruled for good.

Genesis 50:20: As for you, ye meant evil against me (Joseph), but God
meant it for good.

Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I am Jehovah that doeth all these things.

Amos 3:6: Shall evil befall a city and Jehovah hath not done it?

Acts 3:18: The things which God foreshowed by the mouth of all the
prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He thus fulfilled.

Matthew 21:42: The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made
the head of the corner.

Romans 8:28: To them that love God all things work together for good,
even to them that are called according to His purpose.
__________________________________________________________________

[9] The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 159.

[10] Theology, p. 214.

[11] The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 160.

[12] Biblical Doctrines, pp. 13, 22.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IV

The Sovereignty of God

Every thinking person readily sees that some sovereignty rules his
life. He was not asked whether or not he would have existence; nor
when, where, or what he would be born; whether in the twentieth century
or before the flood; whether white or Negro; whether in America or in
China. It has been recognized by Christians in all ages that God is the
Creator and Ruler of the universe, and that as the Creator and Ruler of
the universe He is the ultimate source of all the power that is found
in the creatures. Hence nothing can come to pass apart from His
sovereign will; and when we dwell upon this truth we find that it
involves considerations which establish the Calvinistic and disprove
the Arminian position.

By virtue of the fact that God has created every thing which exists, He
is the absolute Owner and final Disposer of all that He has made. He
exerts not merely a general influence, but actually rules in the world
which He has created. The nations of the earth, in their
insignificance, are as the small dust of the balance when compared with
His greatness; and far sooner might the sun be stopped in his course
than God be hindered in His work or in His will. Amid all the apparent
defeats and inconsistencies of life God actually moves on in
undisturbed majesty. Even the sinful actions of men can occur only by
His permission. And since he permits not unwillingly but willingly, all
that comes to pass–including the actions and ultimate destiny of
men–must be, in some sense, in accordance with what He has desired and
purposed. Just in proportion as this is denied God is excluded from the
government of the world. Naturally some problems arise here which we in
our present state of knowledge are not fully capable of solving; but
that is no sufficient ground for rejecting what the Scriptures and the
plain dictates of reason affirm to be true.

If the power of an earthly king Is law in his kingdom, how much more
shall the word of God be in His! For example, the Christian knows that
the day is certainly coming when, willingly or unwillingly, every knee
shall bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord, to the glory of
God the Father. In the Scriptures He is represented to us as God
ALMIGHTY, who sits upon the throne of universal dominion. He knows the
end from the beginning and the means to be used in attaining that end.
He is able to do for us exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or
even think. The category of the impossible has no existence for Him
“with whom all things are possible,” Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27. This,
however, does not mean that God has power to do that which is contrary
to His nature, or to work contradictions. It is impossible for God to
lie, or to do anything which is morally wrong. He cannot make two and
two equal five, nor can He make a wheel turn around and stand still at
the same time. His omnipotence is as sure a guarantee that the course
of the world will conform to His plan as is His holiness a guarantee
that all His works will be right.

Not only in the New Testament but In the Old Testament as well we find
this doctrine of God’s sovereignty consistently developed. Dr. Warfield
says concerning the doctrine as it is found there: “The Almighty Maker
of all that is represented equally as the irresistible Ruler of all
that He has made; Jehovah sits as King for ever (Psalm 29:10). ” He
goes on to say that the writers rarely use such expressions as “it
rains;” they instinctively speak of God sending rain, etc. The
possibility of accident and chance are excluded and even “the lot was
an accepted means of obtaining the decision of God (Joshua 7:16; 14:2;
18:6; 1 Samuel 10:19; Jonah 1:7). All things without exception, indeed,
are disposed by Him, and His will is the ultimate account of all that
occurs. Heaven and earth and all that is in them are the instruments
through which He works His ends. Nature, nations, and the fortunes of
the individual alike present in all their changes the transcript of His
purpose. The winds are His messengers, the flaming fire His servant:
every natural occurrence is His act; prosperity is His gift, and if
calamity falls upon man it is the Lord that has done it (Amos 3:5, 6;
Lamentations 3:33-38; Isaiah 47:7; Ecclesiastes 7:14; Isaiah 54:16). It
is He that leads the feet of men, wit they whither or not; He that
raises up and casts down; opens and hardens the heart; and creates the
very thoughts and intents of the soul.” [13]

And shall we not believe that God can convert a sinner when He pleases?
Cannot the Almighty, the omnipotent Ruler of the universe, change the
characters of the creatures He has made? He changed the water into wine
at Cana, and converted Saul on the road to Damascus. The leper said,
“Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean,” and at a word his
leprosy was cleansed. God is as able to cleanse the soul as the body,
and we believe that if He chose to do so He could raise up such a flood
of Christian ministers, missionaries, and workers of various kinds that
the world would be converted in a very short time. If He actually
purposed to save all men He could send hosts of angels to instruct them
and to do supernatural works on the earth. He could Himself work
marvelously on the heart of every person so that no one would be lost.
Since evil exists only by His permission, He could, if He chose, blot
it out of existence. His power in this latter respect was shown, for
instance, in the work of the destroying angel who in one night slew all
the first-born of the Egyptians (Exodus 12:29), and in another night
slew 185,000 of the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19:35). It was shown when
the earth opened and swallowed Korah and his rebellious allies (Numbers
16:31-33). Ananias and Sapphira were smitten (Acts 5:1-11); Herod was
smitten and died a horrible death (Acts 12:23). God has lost none of
His power, and it is highly dishonoring to Him to suppose that He is
struggling along with the human race doing the best He can but unable
to accomplish His purposes.

Although the sovereignty of God is universal and absolute, it is not
the sovereignty of blind power. It is coupled with infinite wisdom,
holiness and love. And this doctrine, when properly understood, is a
most comforting and reassuring one. Who would not prefer to have his
affairs in the hands of a God of infinite power, wisdom, holiness and
love, rather than to have them left to fate, or chance, or irrevocable
natural law, or to short-sighted and perverted self ? Those who reject
God’s sovereignty should consider what alternatives they have left.

The affairs of the universe, then, are controlled and guided, how?
“According to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the
counsel of His will.” The present day tendency is to set aside the
doctrines of Divine Sovereignty and Predestination in order to make
room for the autocracy of the human will. The pride and presumption of
man, on the one hand, and his ignorance and depravity on the other,
lead him to exclude God and to exalt himself so far as he is able; and
both of these tendencies combine to lead the great majority of mankind
away from Calvinism.

The Arminian idea which assumes that the serious intentions of God way
in some cases at least be defeated, and that man, who is not only a
creature but a sinful creature, can exercise veto power over the plans
of Almighty God, is in striking contrast with the Biblical idea of His
immeasurable exaltation by which He is removed from all the weaknesses
of humanity. That the plans of men are not always executed is due to a
lack of power, or a lack of wisdom; but since God is unlimited In these
and all other resources, no unforeseen emergencies can arise, and to
Him the causes for change have no existence. To suppose that His plans
fail and that He strives to no effect, is to reduce Him to the level of
His creatures.

SCRIPTURE PROOF

Daniel 4:35: He doeth according to His will In the army of heaven, and
among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand, or say
unto Him, What doest thou?

Jeremiah 32:17: Ah Lord Jehovah! behold thou hast made the heavens and
the earth by thy great power and by thine outstretched arm; and there
is nothing too hard for thee.

Matthew 28:18: All authority bath been given unto me (Christ) in heaven
and on earth.

Ephesians 1:22: And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and
gave Him to be head over all things to the church.

Ephesians 1:11: In whom we were made a heritage, having been
foreordained according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things
after the counsel of His will.

Isaiah 14:24, 27: Jehovah of hosts hath sworn, saying, surely as I have
thought, so shall it come to pass . . . . For Jehovah of hosts hath
purposed, and who shall annul it? and His hand is stretched out, and
who shall turn it back?

Isaiah 46:9, 10, 11: Remember the former things of old; for I am God.
and there is none else; I am God and there is none like me; declaring
the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not
yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure
. . . . yea, I have spoken; I will also bring It to pass; I have
purposed, I will also do it.

Genesis 18:14: Is anything too hard for Jehovah?

Job 42:2: I know that thou canst do all things, And that no purpose of
thine can be restrained.

Psalm 115:3: Our God is in the heavens. He hath done whatsoever He
pleased.

Psalm 135:6: Whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that hath He done. In heaven,
in earth, in the seas, and in all deeps.

Isaiah 55:11: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth; it
shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I
please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Romans 9:20, 21: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against
God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou
make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the
same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto
dishonor?
__________________________________________________________________

[13] Biblical Doctrines, art. Predestination, p. 9.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter V

The Providence of God

“God’s works of providence are His most holy, wise, and powerful
preserving and governing all his creatures and all their actions.”
(Shorter Catechism, answer to Question 11.) The Scriptures very clearly
teach that all things outside of God owe not merely their original
creation, but their continued existence, with all their properties and
Powers, to the will of God. He upholds all things by the word of His
power, Hebrews 1:3. He is before all things, and in Him all things
consist, Colossians 1:17. “Thou art Jehovah, even thou alone; thou hast
made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their hosts, the earth and
all things that are therein, the seas and all that is in them, and thou
preservest them all,” Nehemiah 9:6. “In Him we live, and move and have
our being,” Acts 17:28. He is “over all, and through all, and in all,”
Ephesians 4:6.

Throughout the Bible the laws of nature, the course of history, the
varying fortunes of individuals, are ever attributed to God’s
providential control. All things, both in heaven and earth, from the
seraphim down to the tiny atom, are ordered by His never-failing
providence. So intimate is His relationship with the whole creation
that a careless reader might be led toward pantheistic conclusions. Yet
individual personalities and second causes are fully recognized,–not
as independent of God, but as having their proper place in His plan.
And alongside of this doctrine of His Immanence the Scripture writers
also present the kindred doctrine of His Transcendence, in which God is
distinctly set forth as entirely separate from and above the whole
creation.

Yet as regards God’s providence we are to understand that He is
intimately concerned with every detail in the affairs of men and in the
course of nature. “To suppose that anything is too great to be
comprehended in His control,” says Dr. Charles Hodge, “or anything so
minute as to escape His notice; or that the infinitude of particulars
can distract His attention, is to forget that God is infinite . . . .
The sun diffuses its light through all space as easily as upon any
point. God is as much present everywhere, and with everything, as
though He were only in one place, and had but one object of attention.”
And again, “He is present in every blade of grass, yet guiding Arcturus
in his course, marshalling the stars as a host, calling them by their
names; present also in every human soul, giving it understanding,
endowing it with gifts, working in it both to will and to do. The human
heart is in His hands; and he turneth it even as the rivers of water
are turned.” [14]

It is almost universally admitted that God determines when, where, and
under what circumstances, each individual of our race shall be born,
live, and die, whether it shall be male or female, white or black, wise
or foolish. God is no less sovereign in the distribution of His favors.
He does what He will with His own. To some He gives riches, to others
honor, to others health, to others certain talents for music, oratory,
art, finance, statesmanship, etc. Others are poor, unknown, born in
dishonor, the victims of disease, and live lives of wretchedness. Some
are placed in Christian lands where they receive all the benefits of
the Gospel; others live and die in the darkness of heathenism. Some are
brought through faith unto salvation; others are left to perish in
unbelief. And to a very large extent these external things, which are
not the result of individual choice, decide the person’s life course
and eternal destiny. Both Scripture and every day experience teach us
that God gives to some what He withholds from others. If it be asked
why He does this, or why he does not save all, the only available
answer is found in the words of the Lord Jesus, “Yea, Father, for so it
was well-pleasing in thy sight.” Only the Scripture doctrine of the
fall and redemption will give us any light on what we see about us.

It is to be remembered that those who receive these gifts, whether
spiritual or temporal, receive them through pure grace, while in regard
to the others God simply withholds those gifts which He was under no
obligation to bestow. Nations, as well as individuals, are thus in the
hands of God, who appoints the bounds of their habitation, and controls
their destiny. He controls them as absolutely as a man controls a rod
or a staff. They are in His hands, and He employs them to accomplish
His purposes. He breaks them in pieces as a potter’s vessel, or He
exalts them to greatness, according to His good pleasure. He gives
peace and fruitful seasons, property and happiness, or He sends the
desolations of war, famine, drought and pestilence. All of these things
are of His disposing, and are designed for intelligent ends under His
universal providence. God is no mere spectator of the universe He has
made, but is everywhere present and active, the all-sustaining ground,
and all-governing power of all that is.

Although the price of the sparrow is small, and its flight seems giddy
and at random, yet it does not fall to the ground, nor slight anywhere
without your Father. “His all-wise providence hath before appointed
what bough it shall perch upon; what grains it shall pick up; where it
shall lodge and where it shall build; on what it shall live and where
it shall die.” [15]

Every raindrop and every snowflake which falls from the cloud, every
insect which moves, every plant which grows, every grain of dust which
floats in the air has had certain definite causes and will have certain
definite effects. Each is a link in the chain of events and many of the
great events of history have turned on these apparently insignificant
things.

Throughout the whole course of events there is progress toward a
predetermined end. Dr. Warfield has well written: “It was not accident
that brought Rebecca to the well to welcome Abraham’s servant (Genesis
24), or that sent Joseph into Egypt (Genesis 45:8; 50:20,. ‘God meant
it for good’), or guided Pharaoh’s daughter to the ark among the flags
(Exodus 2), or that, later, directed the millstone that crushed
Abimelech’s head (Judges 9:53), or winged the arrow shot at a venture
to smite the king in the joints of the armor (1 Kings 22:34). Every
historical event is rather treated as an item in the orderly carrying
out of an underlying Divine purpose; and the historian is continually
aware of the presence in history of Him who gives even to the lightning
a charge to strike the mark (Job 36:32).” [16]

“In the great railroad stations,” said Dr. Clarence E. Macartney, “you
can see a metallic pencil come out and write in great characters on the
wall the time of the arrival or departure of the trains. The metallic
pencil seems to write of itself, but we know that hidden in an office
somewhere the mind and hand of a man are operating the pencil. So in
our own life, we note our own deliberations and choices and decisions,
and yet in the fabric of our destiny there seem to be other strands,
strands not of our own weaving. Apparently trivial events play their
part in great issues.” [17]

Man’s sense of moral responsibility and dependence, and his instinctive
appeal to God in times of danger, show how universal and innate is the
conviction that God does govern the world and all human events. But
while the Bible repeatedly teaches that this providential control is
universal, Powerful, wise, and holy, it nowhere attempts to inform us
how it is to be reconciled with man’s free agency. All that we need to
know is that God does govern His creatures and that His control over
them is such that no violence is done to their natures. Perhaps the
relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom can best be
summed up in these words: God so presents the outside inducements that
man acts in accordance with his own nature, yet does exactly what God
has planned for him to do.

This subject, as it relates to human responsibility, will be more fully
treated in the chapter on Free Agency.

SCRIPTURE PROOF

That this is the Scripture doctrine of Providence is so plain that it
is admitted by many whose philosophical views lead them to reject it
for themselves. We shall now present a summary of Scripture proof,
showing that all events have a divinely appointed place and purpose,
that God’s providence is universal, and that He thus secures the
complete fulfillment of His plans. God’s providential control extends
over:

(a) Nature or the physical world. “Jehovah doeth His will in the
whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet,”
Nahum 1:3. “Only in the land of Goshen where the children of Israel
were, there was no hail,” Exodus 9:26. “He maketh His sun to rise on
the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust,”
Matthew 5:45. The famine in Egypt appeared to men to be only the result
of natural causes; yet Joseph could say, “The thing is established of
God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.” Genesis 41: 32. “And I
also have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three
months before the harvest; and I caused it to rain upon one city, and
caused it not to rain upon another city,” Amos 4:7. “He gave you from
heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your heart with food and
gladness,” Acts 14:17. “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of
his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust
of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the
hills in a balance?” Isaiah 40:12.

(b) The animal creation. “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny and not
one of them shall fall to the ground without your Father,” Matthew
10:29. “Behold the birds of the heavens, that they sow not, neither do
they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth
them,” Matthew 6:26. “My God hath sent His angel and hath shut the
lions’ months, that they have not hurt me,” Daniel 6:22. “The young
lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God,” Psalm
104:21. “Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father (Laban) and
given them to me” (Jacob), Genesis 31:9.

(c) Nations. (Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliation was) “to the intent that the
living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and
giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the lowest of
men,” Daniel 4:17. “Behold, the nations are as a drop in the bucket,
and are accounted as the small dust of the balance; behold, He taketh
up the isles as a very little thing,” Isaiah 40:15. “Let them say among
the nations, Jehovah reigneth,” 1 Chronicles 16:31. “For God Is the
King of all the earth,” Psalm 47:7. “He changeth the times and the
seasons; He removeth kings, and setteth up kings,” Daniel 2:21.
“Jehovah bringeth the counsel of the nations to naught; He maketh the
thoughts of the people to be of none effect,” Psalm 33:10. “And Jehovah
gave them rest round about …. Jehovah delivered all their enemies
into their hands,” Joshua 21:44. “And the children of Israel did that
which was evil in the sight of Jehovah; and Jehovah delivered them into
the hands of Midian seven years,” Judges 6:1. ‘Shall evil befall a
city, and Jehovah hath not done it?” Amos 3:6. “For, lo, I raise up the
Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, that march through the breadth
of the earth, to possess dwelling places that are not theirs,” Habakkuk
1:6.

(d) Individual men. “The king’s heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the
watercourses; He turneth it whithersoever He will,” Proverbs 21:1. “A
man’s goings are established of Jehovah,” Psalm 37:23. “A man’s heart
deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps,” Proverbs 16:9.
“For we ought to say, if the Lord will, we shall both live, and do this
or that,” James 4:15. “Of Him, and through Him, and unto Him are all
things,” Romans 11:36. “Who maketh thee to differ? And what hast thou
that thou didst not receive?” 1 Corinthians 4:7. “The angel of the Lord
encampeth round about them that fear Him, And delivereth them,” Psalm
34:7. “If it be so our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the
burning fiery furnace; and He will deliver us out of thy hand,O king,”
Daniel 3:17. “Jehovah is on my side; I shall not fear; What can man do
unto me?” Psalm 118:6. But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are
the clay and thou our potter; and we are the work of thy hands,” Isaiah
64:8. “And the hand of our God was upon us, and He delivered us (the
returning exiles) from the hand of the enemy and the lier-in-wait by
the way,” Ezra 8:31. “And God brought their counsel to naught,”
Nehemiah 4:15. “But against any of the children of Israel shall not a
dog move his tongue, against man or bent; that ye way know how Jehovah
doth make a distinction between the Egyptians and Israel,” Exodus 11:7.
“And the Lord said unto Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid,
but speak and hold not thy peace; for I am with thee, and no man shall
set on thee to harm thee,” Acts 18:9.

(e) The free acts of men. “It is God who worketh in you both to will
and to work, for His good pleasure,” Philippians 2:13. “And Jehovah
gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let
them have what they asked.” Exodus 12:36. “And the king (of Persia,
Artaxerxes) granted him (Ezra) all his request, according to the hand
of Jehovah his God upon him,” Ezra 7:6. “For Jehovah had made them
joyful, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to
strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God” (rebuilding the
temple), Ezra 6:22. “And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you
to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and do
them,” Ezekiel 36:27.

(f) The sinful acts of men. “For of a truth in this city against thy
holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius
Pilate, and the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered
together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel foreordained to
come to pass,” Acts 4:27, 28. “Jesus answered him (Pilate), Thou
wouldst have no power against me, except it were given thee from
above,” John 19:11. (David, rebuking Abishai, in regard to Shimei)
“Because he curseth, and Jehovah hath said, Curse David…. Let him
alone, and let him curse; for Jehovah bath bidden him” II Sam. 16:10,
11. “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee; and the residue of
wrath shalt thou gird upon thee” (or restrain), Ps. 76:10. “And I,
behold I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians and they shall go in
(the Red Sea) after them; and I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and
upon all his host, and upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen,” Ex.
14:17.

(g) To the fortuitous events or “chance happenings. “See section 4 (Ch.
III).”
__________________________________________________________________

[14] Systematic Theology, II, pp. 583, 585.

[15] Toplady, Preface to Zanchius’ Predestination, p. 14.

[16] Biblical Doctrines, p. 14.

[17] Moderator’s sermon, on Predestination, preached before the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., 1924.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VI

The Foreknowledge of God

The Arminian objection against foreordination bears with equal force
against the foreknowledge of God. What God foreknows must, in the very
nature of the case, be as fixed and certain as what is foreordained;
and if one is inconsistent with the free agency of man, the other is
also. Foreordination renders the events certain, while foreknowledge
presupposes that they are certain.

Now if future events are foreknown to God, they cannot by any
possibility take a turn contrary to His knowledge. If the course of
future events is foreknown, history will follow that course as
definitely as a locomotive follows the rails from New York to Chicago.
The Arminian doctrine, in rejecting foreordination, rejects the
theistic basis for foreknowledge. Common sense tells us that no event
can be foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it
has been predetermined. Our choice as to what determines the certainty
of future events narrows down to two alternatives–the foreordination
of the wise and merciful heavenly Father, or the working of blind,
physical fate.

The Socinians and Unitarians, while not so evangelical as the
Arminians, are at this point more consistent; for after rejecting the
foreordination of God, they also deny that He can foreknow the acts of
free agents. They hold that in the very nature of the case it cannot be
known how the person will act until the time comes and the choice is
made. This view of course reduces the prophecies of Scripture to shrewd
guesses at best, and destroys the historic Christian view of the
Inspiration of the Scriptures. It is a view which has never been held
by any recognized Christian church. Some of the Socinians and
Unitarians have been bold enough and honest enough to acknowledge that
the reason which led them to deny God’s certain foreknowledge of the
future acts of men, was, that if this be admitted it would be
impossible to disprove the Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination.

Many Arminians have felt the force of this argument, and while they
have not followed the Unitarians in denying God’s foreknowledge, they
have made it plain that they would very willingly deny it if they
could, or dared. Some have spoken disparagingly of the doctrine of
foreknowledge and have intimated that, in their opinion, it was not of
much importance whether one believed it or not. Some have gone so far
as to tell us plainly that men had better reject foreknowledge than
admit Predestination. Others have suggested that God may voluntarily
neglect to know some of the acts of men in order to leave them free;
but this of course destroys the omniscience of God. Still others have
suggested that God’s omniscience may imply only that He can know all
things, if He chooses,–just as His omnipotence implies that He can do
all things, if He chooses. But the comparison will not hold, for these
certain acts are not merely possibilities but realities, although yet
future; and to ascribe ignorance to God concerning these is to deny Him
the attribute of omniscience. This explanation would give us the
absurdity of an omniscience that is not omniscient.

When the Arminian is confronted with the argument from the
foreknowledge of God, he has to admit the certainty or fixity of future
events. Yet when dealing with the problem of free agency he wishes to
maintain that the acts of free agents are uncertain and ultimately
dependent on the choice of the person,–which is plainly an
inconsistent position. A view which holds that the free acts of men are
uncertain, sacrifices the sovereignty of God in order to preserve the
freedom of men.

Furthermore, if the acts of free agents are in themselves uncertain,
God must then wait until the event has had its issue before making His
plans. In trying to convert a soul, then He would be conceived of as
working in the same manner that Napoleon is said to have gone into
battle-with three or four plans in mind, so that if the first failed,
he could fall back upon the second, and if that failed, then the third,
and so on,–a view which is altogether inconsistent with a true view of
His nature. He would then be ignorant of much of the future and would
daily be gaining vast stores of knowledge. His government of the world
also, in that case, would be very uncertain and changeable, dependent
as it would be on the unforeseen conduct of men.

To deny God the perfections of foreknowledge and immutability is to
represent Him as a disappointed and unhappy being who is often
checkmated and defeated by His creatures. But who can really believe
that in the presence of man the Great Jehovah must sit waiting,
inquiring, “What will he do?” Yet unless Arminianism denies the
foreknowledge of God, it stands defenseless before the logical
consistency of Calvinism; for foreknowledge implies certainty and
certainty implies foreordination.

Speaking through the prophet Isaiah the Lord said: “I am God, and there
is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient
times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and
I will do all my pleasure,” Isaiah 46:10. “Thou understandest my
thoughts afar off,” said the psalmist, 139:2. He “knoweth the heart,”
Acts 15:8. “There is no creature that is not manifest in His sight; but
all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of Him with whom we
have to do,” Hebrews 4:13.

Much of the difficulty in regard to the doctrine of Predestination is
due to the finite character of our mind, which can grasp only a few
details at a time, and which understands only a part of the relations
between these. We are creatures of time, and often fail to take into
consideration the fact that God is not limited as we are. That which
appears to us as “past,” “present,” and “future,” is all “present” to
His mind. It is an eternal “now.” He is “the high and lofty One that
inhabits eternity,” Isaiah 57:15. “A thousands years in thy sight are
but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch in the night,” Psalm
90:4. Hence the events which we see coming to pass in time are only the
events which He appointed and set before Him from eternity. Time is a
property of the finite creation and is objective to God. He is above it
and sees it, but is not conditioned by it. He is also independent of
space, which is another property of the finite creation. Just as He
sees at one glance a road leading from New York to San Francisco, while
we see only a small portion of it as we pass over it, so He sees all
events in history, past, present, and future at one glance. When we
realize that the complete process of history is before Him as an
eternal “now,” and that He is the Creator of all finite existence, the
doctrine of Predestination at least becomes an easier doctrine.

In the eternal ages back of the creation there could not have been any
certainty as to future events unless God had formed a decree in regard
to them. Events pass from the category of things that may or may not
be, to that of things that shall certainly be, or from possibility to
fruition, only when God passes a decree to that effect. This fixity or
certainty could have had its ground in nothing outside of the divine
Mind, for in eternity nothing else existed. Says Dr. R. L. Dabney: “The
only way in which any object can by any possibility have passed from
God’s vision of the possible into His foreknowledge of the actual, is
by His purposing to effectuate it Himself, or intentionally and
purposely to permit its effectuation by some other agent whom He
expressly purposed to bring into existence. This is clear from this
fact. An effect conceived in posse only rises into actuality by virtue
of an efficient cause or causes. When God was looking forward from the
point of view of His original infinite prescience, there was but one
cause, Himself. If any other cause or agent is ever to arise, it must
be by God’s agency. If effects are embraced in God’s infinite
prescience, which these other agents are to produce, still, in willing
these other agents into existence, with infinite prescience, God did
virtually will into existence, or purpose, all the effects of which
they were to be efficients.” [18]

And to the same effect the Baptist theologian, Dr. A. B. Strong, who
for a number of years was President and Professor in the Rochester
Theological Seminary, writes: “In eternity there could have been no
cause of the future existence of the universe, outside of God Himself,
since no being existed but God Himself. In eternity God foresaw that
the creation of the world and the Institution of its laws would make
certain its actual history even to the most insignificant details. But
God decreed to create and to institute these laws. In so decreeing He
necessarily decreed all that was to come. In fine, God foresaw the
future events of the universe as certain, because He had decreed to
create; but this determination to create involved also a determination
of all the actual results of that creation; or, in other words, God
decreed those results.” [19]

Foreknowledge must not be confused with foreordination. Foreknowledge
presupposes foreordination, but is not itself foreordination. The
actions of free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, but
they are foreseen because they are certain to take place. Hence Strong
says, “Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before
foreknowledge. When I say, ‘I know what I will do,’ it is evident that
I have determined already, and that my knowledge does not precede
determination, but follows it and is based upon it.” [20]

Since God’s foreknowledge is complete, He knows the destiny of every
person, not merely before the person has made his choice in this life,
but from eternity. And since He knows their destiny before they are
created, and then proceeds to create, it is plain that the saved and
the lost alike fulfill His plan for them; for if He did not plan that
any particular ones should be lost, He could at least refrain from
creating them.

We conclude, then, that the Christian doctrine of the Foreknowledge of
God proves also His Predestination. Since these events are foreknown,
they are fixed and settled things; and nothing can have fixed and
settled them except the good pleasure of God,–the great first cause,–
freely and unchangeably foreordaining whatever comes to pass. The whole
difficulty lies in the acts of free agents being certain; yet certainty
is required for foreknowledge as well as for foreordination. The
Arminian arguments, if valid, would disprove both foreknowledge and
foreordination. And since they prove too much we conclude that they
prove nothing at all.
__________________________________________________________________

[18] Theology, p. 212.

[19] Systematic Theology, p. 356.

[20] Systematic Theology, p. 357.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII

Outline of Systems

There are really only three systems which claim to set forth a way of
salvation through Christ. They are:

(1) Universalism,–which holds that Christ died for all men and that
eventually all shall be saved, either in this life or through a future
probation. This view perhaps makes the strongest appeal to our
feelings, but is un-Scriptural, and has never been held by an organized
Christian church.

(2) Arminianism,–which holds that Christ died equally and
indiscriminately for every individual of mankind, for those who perish
no less than for those who are saved: that election is not an eternal
and unconditional act of God; that saving grace is offered to every
man, which grace he may receive or reject just as he pleases; that man
may successfully resist the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit if he
chooses to do so; that saving grace is not necessarily permanent, but
that those who are loved of God, ransomed by Christ, and born again of
the Holy Spirit, may (let God wish and strive ever so much to the
contrary) throw away all and perish eternally.

Arminianism in its radical and more fully developed forms is
essentially a recrudescence of Pelagianism, a type of self-salvation.
In fact, the ancestry of Arminianism can be traced back to Pelagianism
as definitely as can that of Calvinism be traced back to
Augustinianism. It might, perhaps, be more properly called
“Pelagianism,” seeing that its principles were brought into existence
nearly twelve hundred years before Arminius was born. Pelagianism
denied human depravity, and the necessity of efficacious grace, and
exalted the human will above the divine. “Its doctrines pleased the
natural palate of man, hating, as all men do hate, the doctrine of
universal depravity. To say that man could grow holy and spotless, that
he could secure God’s grace, and attain to salvation by an act of his
own free will, was teaching that attracted, as it still does attract,
thousands.” [21]

Arminianism at its best is a somewhat vague and indefinite attempt at
reconciliation, hovering midway between the sharply marked systems of
Pelagius and Augustine, taking off the edges of each, and inclining now
to the one, now to the other. Dr. A. A. Hodge refers to it as a
“manifold and elastic system of compromise.” Its leading idea is that
divine grace and human will jointly accomplish the work of conversion
and sanctification, and that man has the sovereign right of accepting
or rejecting. It affirms that man is weak as a result of the fall, but
denies that all ability has been lost. Man therefore merely needs
divine grace to assist his personal efforts. Or, to put it another way,
he is sick, but not dead; he indeed cannot help himself, but he can
engage the help of a physician, and can either accept or reject the
help when it is offered. He thus has power to co-operate with the grace
of God in the matter of salvation. This view exalts man’s freedom at
the expense of God’s sovereignty. It has some apparent, but no real,
Scripture authority, and is plainly contradicted by other parts of
Scripture.

History shows plainly that the tendency of Arminianism is to compromise
and to drift gradually from an evangelical basis. Hence it is that to
this day there has never been developed a logical and systematic body
of Arminian theology. It has, in the Methodist Church for instance, a
brief and informal creed in some twenty-five articles; but the contrast
between that statement and the carefully wrought-out Westminster
Confession is seen at a glance.

(3) The third system setting forth a way of salvation through Christ is
Calvinism. Calvinism holds that as a result of the fall into sin all
men in themselves are guilty, corrupted, hopelessly lost; that from
this fallen mass God sovereignly elects some to salvation through
Christ, while passing by others; that Christ is sent to redeem His
people by a purely substitutionary atonement; that the Holy Spirit
efficaciously applies this redemption to the elect; and that all of the
elect are infallibly brought to salvation. This view alone is
consistent with Scripture and with what we see in the world about us.

Calvinism holds that the fall left man totally unable to do anything
meriting salvation, that he is wholly dependent on divine grace for the
inception and development of spiritual life. The chief fault of
Arminianism is its insufficient recognition of the part that God takes
in redemption. It loves to admire the dignity and strength of man;
Calvinism loses itself in adoration of the grace and omnipotence of
God. Calvinism casts man first into to supernatural strength. The one
flatters natural pride; the other is a gospel for penitent sinners. As
that which exalts man in his own sight and tickles his fancies is more
welcome to the natural heart than that which abases him, Arminianism is
likely to prove itself more popular. Yet Calvinism is nearer to the
facts, however harsh and forbidding those facts may seem. “It is not
always the most agreeable medicine which is the most healing. The
experience of the apostle John is one of frequent occurrence, that the
little book which is sweet as honey in the mouth is bitter in the
belly. Christ crucified was a stumbling-block to one class of people
and foolishness to another, and yet He was, and is, the power of God
and the wisdom of God unto salvation to all who believe.” [22]

Men constantly deceive themselves by postulating their own peculiar
feelings and opinions as moral axioms. To some it is self-evidently
true that a holy God cannot permit sin; hence they infer that there is
no God. To others it is self-evident that a merciful God cannot permit
a portion of His rational creatures to be forever the victims of sin
and misery, and consequently they deny the doctrine of eternal
punishment. Some assume that the innocent cannot justly be punished for
the guilty, and are led to deny the vicarious and substitutionary
suffering and death of Christ. And to others it is an axiom that the
free acts of a free agent cannot be certain and under the control of
God, so they deny the foreordination, or even the foreknowledge, of
such acts.

We are not at liberty, however, to develop a system of our own liking.
“The question which of these systems is true,” says Dr. Charles Hodge,
a zealous and uncompromising advocate of Calvinism, “is not to be
decided by ascertaining which is the more agreeable to our feelings or
the more plausible to our understanding, but which is consistent with
the doctrines of the Bible and the facts of experience.” “It is the
duty of every theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and
teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what
the Bible teaches,” And again, “There would be no end of controversy,
and no security for any truth whatever, if the strong personal
convictions of individual minds be allowed to determine what is, or
what is not true, what the Bible may, and what it may not be allowed to
teach.” [23]

As in the case of the other doctrines which are common to the Christian
system, there is no place in the Bible where these distinctive
Calvinistic doctrines are set forth in a systematic and complete form.
The Bible is not a work on Systematic Theology, but only the quarry out
of which the stone for such a temple can be obtained. Instead of giving
us a formal statement of a theological system it gives us a mass of raw
materials which must be organized and systematized and worked up into
their organic relations. Nowhere, for instance, do we find a formal
statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the person of Christ,
or of the inspiration of the Scriptures. It gives us an account of the
origin and development of the Hebrew people and of the founding of
Christianity, and the doctrinal facts are given with little regard to
their logical relations. These facts need to be classified and arranged
in a logical system and thus transformed into theology. This fact, that
the material in the Bible is not arranged in a theological system, is
in accordance with God’s procedure in other realms. He has not given us
a fully developed system of biology, or astronomy, or politics. We
simply find the unorganized facts in nature and in experience and are
left to develop them into a system as best we may. And since the
doctrines are not thus presented in a systematic and formal way it is
much easier for false interpretations to arise.
__________________________________________________________________

[21] Warburton, Calvinism, p. 11.

[22] McFetridge, Calvinism in History, p. 136.

[23] Systematic Theology, II, pp. 356, 559, 531.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VIII

The Scriptures Are the Final Athority by Which Systems Are to Be Judged

In all matters of controversy between Christians the Scriptures are
accepted as the highest court of appeal. Historically they have been
the common authority of Christendom. We believe that they contain one
harmonious and sufficiently complete system of doctrine; that all of
their parts are consistent with each other; and that it is our duty to
trace out this consistency by a careful investigation of the meaning of
particular passages. [24]

“The Word of God,” says Warburton, concerning these doctrines, “is the
great and final tribunal before which they must be brought, and by
which they must be tried. And the truth or falsity of our belief is
measured by the corresponding agreement with, or diversity from, that
form of doctrine which is set forth in the unerring revelation that God
has given to us in His inspired Word. It is by this criterion that
Calvinism must be tried. It is by this criterion that Arminianism or
Pelagianism must be tried. It is by this criterion, and by this
criterion alone, that every form of belief, be it religious, or be it
scientific, must be tried; and if they speak not according to this
Word, it is because there is no light in them . . . We believe in the
full, verbal inspiration of the Word of God. We hold it to be the only
authority in all matters and assert that no doctrine can be true, or
essential, if it does not find a place in this Word.” [25]

It is obvious that the truth or falsity of this profound doctrine of
Predestination can be decided only by divine revelation. No person,
acting merely on his own observations and judgments, can know what are
the basic principles of the plan which God is following. Philosophical
speculation and all abstract reasoning should be held in abeyance until
we have first heard the testimony of Scripture,–and when we have heard
that testimony, we should humbly submit. Would that we had more people
with that noble character of the Bereans who searched the Scriptures
daily to see whether or not these things were so.

In connection with each of the doctrines discussed in this book we have
presented a large mass of Scripture evidence–evidence both direct and
inferential–evidence which cannot be answered or explained
away–evidence greatly superior in strength, extent and explicitness,
to any that can be adduced on the other side. The Bible unfolds a
scheme of redemption which is Calvinistic from beginning to end. and
these doctrines are taught with such inescapable clearness that the
question is settled for all those who accept the Bible as the Word of
God. These doctrines are set forth in the most impressive way; and the
unstudied naturalness and simplicity with which they are given makes
them all the more impressive. Should any one ask us the question, Are
there any stars in the heavens? Our answer would be, The heavens are
full of stars, Psalm 8:3, 4. Or again, Are there any fishes in the sea?
Our answer would be, The sea is full of fishes, Psalm 104:25, 27. Or
again, Are there any trees in the forest? We would again reply, The
forest is full of trees. And in like manner should we be asked the
question, Is the doctrine of Predestination in the Bible? Our answer
should be, The Bible is full of it from Genesis to Revelation.

That such doctrines as the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the
personality of the Holy Spirit, the sinfulness of man, and the reality
of future punishments, are Scriptural is not denied even by those who
refuse to accept them as true. It is a common thing for rationalists
and so-called higher critics to admit that the apostles believed and
taught the evangelical and Calvinistic doctrines, and that with a
strict application of the rules of exegesis their statements cannot
admit of any other interpretation; but of course they do not consider
themselves bound to accept the authority of any apostle. They ascribe
the apostles’ belief in these doctrines, for instance, to “the
erroneous notions of a crude and uncivilized age.” This, however, does
not detract from the value of their testimony that these passages,
critically interpreted, can have no other meaning. Furthermore, we
would prefer to say with the rationalists that the Scriptures teach
these doctrines but that the Scriptures are no authority for us, rather
than to profess acceptance of their teaching while ingeniously evading
the force of their argument.

We shall show that there is no great difficulty–no undue violence or
straining required–to interpret consistently with our doctrine the
passages which are brought forth by Arminians, while it is impossible,
without the most unwarrantable and unnatural forcing and straining, to
reconcile their doctrine with our passages. Furthermore, our doctrine
could not be overthrown merely by bringing forth other passages which
would contradict it, for that at most would only give us a
self-contradictory Bible.

In the light of modern scientific exegesis, it is quite evident that
the objections which are raised against the Reformed Theology are
emotional or philosophical rather than exegetical. And had men been
content to interpret the language of Scripture according to the
acknowledged principles of interpretation, the faith of Christians
might have been far more harmonious. Our opponents, says Cunningham,
are able to “argue with some plausibility only when they are dealing
with single passages, or particular classes of passages, but keeping
out of view, or throwing into the background, the general mass of
Scripture evidence bearing upon the whole subject. When we take a
conjunct view of the whole body of Scripture statements, manifestly
intended to make known to us the nature, causes, and consequences of
Christ’s death, literal and figurative–view them in combination with
each other–and fairly estimate what they are fitted to teach, there is
no good ground for doubt as to the general conclusions which we should
feel ourselves constrained to adopt.” [26]

So long as we hold to the Reformed principle that the Scriptures are to
be accepted as the sole authority in matters of doctrine the
Calvinistic system will stand as the only one which adequately treats
of God, man, and redemption.
__________________________________________________________________

[24] For the most exhaustive and scholarly treatment of the doctrines
of Revelation and Inspiration, see Warfield, “Revelation and
Inspiration.”

[25] Calvinism, p. 21.

[26] Historical Theology, II, p. 298.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IX

A Warning Against Undue Speculation

Just at this point we shall give a few words of warning against undue
speculation and curiosity in dealing with this lofty doctrine of
Predestination. Perhaps we can do no better than to quote the words of
Calvin himself which are found in the first section of his treatment of
this subject: “The discussion of Predestination–a subject of itself
rather intricate–is made very perplexed, and therefore dangerous, by
human curiosity, which no barriers can restrain from wandering into
forbidden labyrinths, and from soaring beyond its sphere, as if
determined to leave none of the Divine secrets unscrutinized or
unexplored . . . First, then, let them remember that when they inquire
into Predestination, they penetrate into the inmost recesses of divine
wisdom, where the careless and confident intruder will obtain no
satisfaction to his curiosity . . . For we know that when we have
exceeded the limits of the word, we shall get into a devious and
irksome course, in which errors, slips, and falls will be inevitable.
Let us then, in the first place bear in mind, that to desire any more
knowledge of Predestination than that which is unfolded in the Word of
God, indicates as great folly as to wish to walk through impassible
roads, or to see in the dark. Nor let us be ashamed to be ignorant of
some things relative to a subject in which there is a kind of learned
ignorance.” [27]

We are not under obligation to “explain” these truths; we are only
under obligation to state what God has revealed in His word, and to
vindicate these statements as far as possible from misconception and
objections. In the nature of the case all that we can know concerning
such profound truths is what the Spirit has seen fit to reveal
concerning them, being confident that whatever God has revealed is
undoubtedly true and is to be believed although we may not be able to
sound its depths with the line of our reason. In our ignorance of His
inter-related purposes, we are not fitted to be His counselors. “Thy
judgments are a great deep,” said the psalmist. As well might man
attempt to swim the ocean as to fathom the judgments of God. Man knows
far too little to justify him in attempting to explain the mysteries of
God’s rule.

The importance of the subject discussed should lead us to proceed only
with profoundest reverence and caution. While it is true that mysteries
are to be handled with care, and while unwarranted and presumptuous
speculations concerning divine things are to be avoided, yet if we
would declare the Gospel in its purity and fullness we must be careful
not to withhold from believers what is declared in the Scriptures
concerning Predestination. That some of these truths will be perverted
and abused by the ungodly is to be expected. No matter how plainly it
is taught in Scripture, the unenlightened mind considers it as absurd,
for instance, that one God should exist in three persons, or that God
should foreknow the entire course of world events, as that His plan
should include the destiny of every person. And while we can know only
as much about Predestination as God has seen fit to reveal, it is
important that we shall know that much; otherwise it would not have
been revealed. Where Scripture leads we may safely follow.
__________________________________________________________________

[27] Institutes, Ch. XXI, sect. I, II.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

The Five Points of Calvinism

The Calvinistic system especially emphasizes five distinct doctrines.
These are technically known as “The Five Points of Calvinism,” and they
are the main pillars upon which the superstructure rests. In this
section we shall examine each of these, giving the Scripture basis and
the arguments from reason which support them. We shall then consider
the objections which are commonly brought against them.

As will be shown, the Bible contains an abundance of material for the
development of each of these doctrines. Furthermore, these are not
isolated and independent doctrines but are so inter-related that they
form a simple, harmonious, self-consistent system; and the way in which
they fit together as component parts of a well-ordered whole has won
the admiration of thinking men of all creeds. Prove any one of them
true and all the others will follow as logical and necessary parts of
the system. Prove any one of them false and the whole system must be
abandoned. They are found to dovetail perfectly one into the other.
They are so many links in the great chain of causes, and not one of
them can be taken away without marring and subverting the whole Gospel
plan of salvation through Christ. We cannot conceive of this agreement
arising merely by accident, nor even being possible, unless these
doctrines are true.

Let it be borne in mind that in this book we do not propose to discuss
in detail those other doctrines of the Scriptures which are accepted by
evangelical Christendom, but to set forth and defend those which are
peculiar to the Calvinistic system. Unless this be kept in mind much of
the real strength and beauty of generic Calvinism will be lost and the
so-called “Five Points of Calvinism,”–which historically and in
reality are the obverse of what might be called the “Five Points of
Arminianism,”–will assume undue prominence in the system. Let the
reader, then, guard against a too close identification of the Five
Points and the Calvinistic system. While these are essential elements,
the system really includes much more. As stated in the Introduction,
the Westminster Confession is a balanced statement of the Reformed
Faith or Calvinism, and it gives due prominence to the other Christian
doctrines.

The Five Points may be more easily remembered if they are associated
with the word T-U-L-I-P; T, Total Inability ; U, Unconditional
Election; L, Limited Atonement; I, Irresistible (Efficacious) Grace;
and P, Perseverance of the Saints.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter X

Total Inability

1. Statement of the Doctrine. 2. The Extent and Effects of Original
Sin. 3. The Defects in Man’s Common Virtues. 4. The Fall of Man. 5. The
Representative Principle. 6. The Goodness and Severity of God. 7.
Scripture Proof.

In the Westminster Confession the doctrine of Total Inability Is stated
as follows: — “Man, by his fall Into a state of sin, hath wholly lost
all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as
a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is
not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare
himself thereunto.” [28]

Paul, Augustine, and Calvin have as their starting point the fact that
all mankind sinned in Adam and that all men are “without excuse,” Rom.
2:1. Time and again Paul tells us that we are dead in trespasses and
sins, estranged from God, and helpless. In writing to the Ephesian
Christians he reminded them that before they received the Gospel they
were “separate from Christ, alienated from the common. wealth of
Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope
and without God in the world,” 2:12. There we notice the five-fold
emphasis as he piles phrase on top of phrase to stress this truth.

2. THE EXTENT AND EFFECTS OF ORIGINAL SIN

This doctrine of Total Inability, which declares that men are dead in
sin, does not mean that all men are equally bad, nor that any man is as
bad as he could be, nor that any one in entirely destitute of virtue,
nor that human nature is evil In Itself, nor that man’s spirit is
inactive, and much less does it mean that the body is dead. What it
does mean is that since the fall man rests under the curse of sin, that
he is actuated by wrong principles, and that he is wholly unable to
love God or to do anything meriting salvation. His corruption is
extensive but not necessarily intensive.

It is in this sense that man since the fail “is utterly indisposed,
disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all
evil.” He possesses a fixed bias of the will against God, and
instinctively and willingly turns to evil. He is an alien by birth, and
a sinner by choice. The inability under which he labors is not an
inability to exercise volitions, but an inability to be willing to
exercise holy volitions. And it is this phase of it which led Luther to
declare that “Free-will is an empty term, whose reality is lost. And a
lost liberty, according to my grammar, is no liberty at all.” [29] In
matters pertaining to his salvation, the unregenerate man is not at
liberty to choose between good and evil, but only to choose between
greater and lesser evil, which is not properly free will. The fact that
fallen man still has ability to do certain acts morally good in
themselves does not prove that he can do acts meriting salvation, for
his motives may be wholly wrong.

Man is a free agent but be cannot originate the love of God in his
heart. His will is free in the sense that it is not controlled by any
force outside of himself. As the bird with a broken wing is “free” to
fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not
able. How can he repent of his sin when he loves it? How can he come to
God when he hates Him? This is the inability of the will under which
man labors. Jesus said, “And this is the judgment, that light is come
into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for
their works were evil,” John 3 :19; and again, “Ye will not come to me,
that ye may have life,” John 5:40. Man’s ruin lies mainly in his own
perverse will. He cannot come because he will not. Help enough is
provided if he were only willing to accept it. Paul tells us, “The
carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of
God, neither indeed can it be. So they that are in the flesh cannot
please God:” Romans 8:7.

To assume that because man has ability to love he therefore has ability
to love God, is about as wise as to assume that since water has the
ability to flow, it therefore has the ability to flow up hill; or to
reason that because a man has power to cast himself from the top of a
precipice to the bottom, he therefore has equal power to transport
himself from the bottom to the top.

Fallen man sees nothing desirable in “the One who is altogether lovely,
the fairest among ten thousand.” He may admire Jesus as a man, but he
wants nothing to do with Him as God, and he resists the outward holy
influences of the Spirit with all his power. Sin, and not
righteousness, has become his natural element so that he has no desire
for salvation.

Man’s fallen nature gives rise to a most obdurate blindness, stupidity,
and opposition concerning the things of God. His will is under the
control of a darkened understanding, which puts sweet for bitter, and
bitter for sweet, good for evil, and evil for good. So far as his
relations with God are concerned, he wills only that which is evil,
although he wills it freely. Spontaneity and enslavement actually exist
together.

In other words, fallen man is so morally blind that he uniformly
prefers and chooses evil instead of good, as do the fallen angels or
demons. When the Christian is completely sanctified he reaches a state
in which he uniformly prefers and chooses good, as do the holy angels.
Both of these states are consistent with freedom and responsibility of
moral agents. Yet while fallen man acts thus uniformly he is never
compelled to sin, but does it freely and delights in it. His
dispositions and desires are so inclined, and he acts knowingly and
willingly from the spontaneous motion of the heart. This natural bias
or appetite for that which is evil is characteristic of man’s fallen
and corrupt nature, so that, as Job says, he “drinketh iniquity like
water,” 15:16.

We read that “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit,
for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, for they are
spiritually discerned,” 1 Corinthians 2:14. We are at a loss to
understand how any one can take a plain common sense view of this
passage of Scripture and yet contend for the doctrine of human ability.
Man in his natural state cannot even see the kingdom of God, much less
can he get into it. An uncultured person may see a beautiful work of
art as an object of vision, but he has no appreciation of its
excellence. He may see the figures of a complex mathematical equation,
but they have no meaning for him. Horses and cattle may see the same
beautiful sunset or other phenomenon in nature that men see, but they
are blind to all of the artistic beauty. So it is when the Gospel of
the cross is presented to the unregenerate man. He may have an
intellectual knowledge of the facts and doctrines of the Bible, but he
lacks all spiritual discernment of their excellence, and finds no
delight in them. The same Christ is to one man without form or
comeliness that he should desire Him; to another He is the Prince of
life and the Savior of the world, God manifest in the flesh, whom it is
impossible not to adore, love and obey.

This total inability, however, arises not merely from a perverted moral
nature, but also from ignorance. Paul wrote that the Gentiles “walk in
the vanity of their mind, being darkened in their understanding,
alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in
them, because of the hardening of their heart,” Ephesians 4:17, 18. And
again, “The word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but
unto us who are saved it is the power of God,” 1 Corinthians 1:18. When
he wrote of “Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And which
entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God hath prepared
for them that love Him,” he had reference, not to the glories of the
heavenly state as is commonly supposed, but to the spiritual realities
in this life which cannot be seen by the unregenerate mind, as is made
plain by the words of the following verse: “But unto us God revealed
them through the Spirit,” 1 Corinthians 2:9, 10. On one occasion Jesus
said, “No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know
the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal
Him,” Matthew 11:27. Here we are plainly told that man in his
unregenerate, unenlightened nature does not know God in any sense
worthy the name, and that the Son is sovereign in choosing who shall
come into this saving knowledge of God.

Fallen man then lacks the power of spiritual discernment. His reason or
understanding is blinded, and the taste and feelings are perverted. And
since this state of mind is innate, as a condition of man’s nature, it
is beyond the power of the will to change it. Rather it controls both
the affections and volitions. The effect of regeneration is clearly
taught in the divine commission which Paul received at his conversion
when he was told that he was to be sent to the Gentiles “to open their
eyes, that they might turn from darkness to light and from the power of
Satan unto God,” Acts 26:18.

Jesus taught the same truth under a different figure when He said to
the Pharisees, “Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye
cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of
your father it is your will to do,” John 8:43, 44. They could not
understand, nor even hear His words in any intelligible way. To them
His words were only foolishness, madness; and they accused Him of being
demon possessed (vss. 48, 52). Only His disciples could know the truth
(vss. 31, 32); the Pharisees were children of the Devil (vss. 42, 44),
and bondservants of sin (vs. 34). although they thought themselves free
(vs. 33).

At another time Jesus taught that a good tree could not bring forth
evil fruit, nor an evil tree good fruit. And since in this similitude
the good and evil trees represent good and evil men, what does It mean
but that one class of men is governed by one set of basic principles,
while the other class is governed by another set of basic principles?
The fruits of these two trees are acts, words, thoughts, which if good
proceed from a good nature, and if evil proceed from and evil nature.
It is impossible, then, for one and the same root to bring forth fruit
of different kinds. Hence we deny the existence in man of a power which
may act either way, on the logical ground that both virtue and vice
cannot come out of the same moral condition of the agent. And we affirm
that human actions which relate to God proceed either out of a moral
condition which necessarily produces good actions or out of a moral
condition which necessarily produces evil actions.

“In the Epistle to the Ephesians Paul declares that Prior to the
quickening of the Spirit of God each individual soul lies dead in
trespasses and sins. Now it will surely be admitted that to be dead,
and to be dead in sin, is clear and positive evidence that there is
neither aptitude nor Power remaining for the performance of any
spiritual action. If a man were dead, in a natural and physical sense,
it would at once be readily granted that there is no further
Possibility of that man being able to perform any physical actions. A
corpse cannot act in any way whatever, and that man would be reckoned
to have taken leave of his senses who asserted that it could. If a man
is dead spiritually, therefore, it is surely equally as evident that he
is unable to perform any spiritual actions, and thus the doctrine of
man’s moral inability rests upon strong Scriptural evidence.” [30]

“On the principle that no clean thing can come out of what is unclean
(Job 14:4), all that are born of woman are declared ‘abominable and
corrupt,’ to whose nature iniquity alone is attractive (Job 15:14-16).
Accordingly, to become sinful, men do not wait until the age of
accountable action arrives. Rather, they are apostates from the womb,
and as soon as they are born go astray, speaking lies (Psalm 58:3);
they are even shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5).
The propensity of their heart is evil from their youth (Genesis 8:21),
and it is out of the heart that all the issues of life proceed
(Proverbs 4: 23; 20: 11). Acts of sin are therefore but the expression
of the natural heart, which is deceitful above all things and
exceedingly corrupt (Jeremiah 17:9).” [31]

Ezekiel presents this same truth in graphic language and gives us the
picture of the helpless infant which was cast out in its blood and left
to die, but which the Lord graciously found and cared for (Chapter 16).

This doctrine of original sin supposes that fallen men have the same
kind and degree of liberty in sinning under the influence of a corrupt
nature as have the Devil and the demons, or that the saints in glory
and the holy angels have in acting rightly under the influence of a
holy nature. That is, men and angels act according to their natures. As
the saints and angels are confirmed in holiness,–that is, possessed of
a nature which is wholly inclined to righteousness and adverse to
sin,–so the nature of fallen men and of demons is such that they
cannot perform a single act with right motives toward God. Hence the
necessity that God shall sovereignly change the person’s character in
regeneration.

The Old Testament ceremonies of circumcision of the new-born child, and
of purification of the mother, were designed to teach that man comes
into the world sinful that since the fall human nature is corrupt in
its very origin. Paul stated this truth in another and, if possible,
even stronger way in 2 Corinthians 4: 3, 4: “And if our Gospel is
veiled it is veiled to them that perish; in whom the god of this world
(by which he means the Devil) hath blinded the minds of the
unbelieving, that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ who is
the image of God, should not dawn upon them.” In a word, then, fallen
men without the operations of The Spirit of God, are under the rule of
Satan. They are led captive by him at his will, 2 Timothy 2:26. So long
as this “strong man fully armed” is not molested by the “stronger than
he.” he keeps his kingdom in peace and his captives willingly do his
bidding. But the “stronger than he” has overcome him, has taken his
armor from him, and has liberated a part of his captives (Luke 11:21,
22). God now exercises the right of releasing whom He will; and all
born again Christians are ransomed sinners from that kingdom.

The Scriptures declare that fallen man is a captive, a willing slave to
sin, and entirely unable to deliver himself from its bondage and
corruption. He is incapable of understanding, and much less of doing,
the things of God. There is what we might term “the freedom of
slavery,”–a state in which the subject is free only to do the will of
his master, which in this case is sin. It was this to which Jesus
referred when He said, “Every one that committeth sin is the
bondservant of sin,” John 8:34.

And such being the depth of man’s corruption it is wholly beyond his
own power to cleanse himself. His only hope of an amendment of life
lies accordingly in a change of heart, which change is brought about by
the sovereign re-creative power of the Holy Spirit who works when and
where and how He pleases. As well might one attempt to pump a leaking
ship while the leak is still unmended, as to reform the unregenerate
without this inward change. Or as well might the Ethiopian change his
skin, or the leopard his spots, as he who is accustomed to do evil
correct his ways. This transfer from spiritual death to spiritual life
we call “regeneration.” It is referred to in Scripture by various
terms: “regeneration,” a “making alive,” a “calling out of darkness
into light,” a “quickening,” a “renewing,” a taking away of the heart
of stone and giving the heart of flesh, etc., which work is exclusively
that of the Holy Spirit. As a result of this change a man comes to see
the truth and gladly accepts it. His very instincts and intimate
impulses are transferred to the side of law, obedience to which becomes
but the spontaneous expression of his nature. Regeneration is said to
be wrought by that same supernatural power which God wrought in Christ
when He raised Him from the dead (Ephesians 1:18-20). Man does not
possess the power of self-regeneration, and until this inward change
takes place, he cannot be convinced of the truth of the Gospel by any
amount of external testimony. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if one rise from the dead.”

3. THE DEFECTS IN MAN’S COMMON VIRTUES

The unregenerate man can, through common grace, love his family and he
may be a good citizen. He may give a million dollars to build a
hospital, but he cannot give even a cup of cold water to a disciple in
the name of Jesus. If a drunkard, he may abstain from drink for
utilitarian purposes, but he cannot do it out of love for God. All of
his common virtues or good works have a fatal defect in that his
motives which prompt them are not to glorify God, — a defect so vital
that it throws any element of goodness as to man wholly into the shade.
It matters not how good the works may be in themselves, for so long as
the doer of them in out of harmony with God, none of his works are
spiritually acceptable. Furthermore, the good works of the unregenerate
have no stable foundation, for his nature is still unchanged: and as
naturally and as certainly as the washed sow returns to her wallowing
in the mire, so he sooner or later returns to his evil ways.

In the realm of morals it is a rule that the morality of the man must
precede the morality of the action. One may speak with the tongues of
men and of angels; yet if he Is lacking that inward principle of love
toward God, he is become as sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. He
may give all his goods to feed the poor, and may give his body to be
burned; yet if he lacks that inward principle. it profits him nothing.
As human beings we know that an act of service rendered to us (by
whatever utilitarian motives prompted) by someone who is at heart our
enemy, does not merit our love and approbation. The Scripture statement
that “Without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto God,”
finds Its explanation in this, that faith is the foundation of all the
other virtues, and nothing is acceptable to God which does not flow
from right feelings.

A moral act is to be judged by the standard of love to God, which love
is, as it were, the soul of all other virtue, and which is bestowed
upon us only through grace. Augustine did not deny the existence of
natural virtues, such as moderation, honesty, generosity, which
constitute a certain merit among men; but be drew a broad line of
distinction between these and the specific Christian graces (faith,
love and gratitude to God, etc.), which alone are good in the strict
sense of the word, and which alone have value before God. This
distinction is very plainly illustrated in an example given by W. D.
Smith. Says he: “In a gang of pirates we may find many things that are
good in themselves. Though they are in wicked rebellion against the
laws of the government, they have their own laws and regulations, which
they obey strictly. We find among them courage and fidelity, with many
other things that will recommend them as pirates. They may do many
things, too, which the laws of the government require, but they are not
done because the government has so required, but in obedience to their
own regulations. For instance the government requires honesty and they
may be strictly honest, one with another, In their transactions, and
the division of all their spoil. Yet, as respects the government, and
the general principle, their whole life is one of the most wicked
dishonesty. Now, it is plain, that while they continue in their
rebellion they can do nothing to recommend them to the government as
citizens. Their first step must be to give up their rebellion,
acknowledge their allegiance to the government, and sue for mercy. So
all men, in their natural state, are rebels against God, and though
they may do many things which the law of God requires, and which will
recommend them as men, yet nothing is done with reference to God and
His law. Instead, the regulations of society, respect for public
opinion, self-interest, their own character in the sight of the world,
or some other worldly or wicked motive, reigns supremely; and God, to
whom they owe their heart and lives, is forgotten; or, if thought of at
all, His claims are wickedly rejected, His counsels spurned, and the
heart, in obstinate rebellion, refuses obedience. Now it is plain that
while the heart continues in this state the man is a rebel against God,
and can do nothing to recommend him to His favor. The first step is to
give up his rebellion, repent of his sins, turn to God, and sue for
pardon and reconciliation through the Savior. This he is unwilling to
do, until he is made willing. He loves his sins, and will continue to
love them, until his heart is changed.”

The good actions of unregenerate men, Smith continues, “are not
positively sinful in themselves, but sinful from defect. They lack the
principle which alone can make them righteous in the sight of God. In
the case of the pirates it is easy to see that all their actions are
sin against the government. While they continue pirates, their sailing,
mending, or rigging the vessel and even their eating and drinking, are
all sins in the eyes of the government, as they are only so many
expedients to enable them to continue their piratical career, and are
parts of their life of rebellion. So with sinners. While the heart is
wrong, it vitiates everything in the sight of God, even their most
ordinary occupations; for the plain, unequivocal language of God is,
‘Even the lamp of the wicked, is sin,’ Proverbs 21:4.” [32]

It is this inability which the Scriptures teach when they declare that
“They that are in the flesh cannot please God,” Romans 8:8; “Whatsoever
Is not of faith in sin,” Romans 14:23; and “Without faith it is
impossible to be well-pleasing to Him,” Hebrews 11:6. Hence even the
virtues of the unregenerate man are but as plucked and fading flowers.
It was because of this that Jesus said to His disciples, “Except your
righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and
Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” And
because those virtues are of this nature, they are only temporary. The
one who possesses them is like the seed which falls on the stony soil,
which perhaps springs up with promise of fruitage, but soon withers in
the sun because it has no root in itself.

It follows also from what has been said that salvation to ABSOLUTELY
AND SOLELY OF GRACE,–that God Is free, in consistency with the
infinite perfections of His nature, to save none, few, many, or all,
according to the sovereign good pleasure of His will. It also follows
that salvation is not based on any merits in the creature, and that it
depends on God, and not on men, who are, and who are not, to be made
partakers of eternal life. God acts as a sovereign in saving some and
passing by others who are left to the just recompense of their sins.
Sinners are compared to dead men, or even to dry bones in their entire
helplessness. In this they are all alike. The choice of some to eternal
life is as sovereign as if Christ were to pass through a graveyard and
bid one here and another there to come forth, the reason for restoring
one to life and leaving another in his grave could be found only in His
good pleasure, and not in the dead themselves. Hence the statement that
we are foreordained according to the good pleasure of His will, and not
after the good inclinations of our own; and in order that we might be
holy, not because we were holy (Ephesians 1:4, 5). “Since all men alike
deserved only God’s wrath and curse the gift of His only begotten Son
to die in the stead of malefactors, as the only possible method of
expiating their guilt, is the most stupendous exhibition of undeserved
favor and personal love that the universe has ever witnessed.” [33]

4. THE FALL OF MAN

The fall of the human race into a state of sin and misery is the basis
and foundation of the system of redemption which is set forth in the
Scriptures, as it is the basis and foundation of the system which we
teach. Only Calvinists seem to take the doctrine of the fall very
seriously. Yet the Bible from beginning to end declares that man is
ruined–totally ruined–that he is in a state of guilt and depravity
from which he is utterly unable to deliver himself, and that God might
in justice have left him to perish. In the Old Testament the narrative
concerning the fall is found in the third chapter of Genesis; and in
the New Testament direct references are made to it in Romans 5:12-21; 1
Corinthians 15:22; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13, 14, etc.,
although the New Testament emphasizes not the historic fact that man
fell, but the ethical fact that he is fallen. The New Testament writers
interpreted it literally and based their theology upon it. To Paul Adam
was as real as Christ, the fall as real as the atonement. It may be
maintained that the apostles were in error, but that this was their
position cannot be denied.

Dr. A. A. Hodge has given us a very good statement of the doctrine of
the fall which we shall take the privilege of quoting:–”As a fair
probation could not, in the nature of the case, be given to every new
member in person as it comes into existence an undeveloped infant, God,
as guardian of the race and for its best interests, gave all its
members a trial in the person of Adam under the most favorable
circumstances–making him for that end the representative and personal
substitute of each one of his natural descendants. He formed with him a
covenant of works and of life; i. e., He gave to him for himself, and
in behalf of all whom he represented, a promise of eternal life,
conditioned upon perfect obedience,–that is, upon works. The obedience
demanded was a specific test for a temporary period, which period of
trial must necessarily be closed either by the reward consequent upon
obedience, or the death consequent upon disobedience. The ‘reward’
promised was eternal life, which was a grace including far more than
was originally bestowed upon Adam at his creation, the grant of which
would have elevated the race into a condition of indefeasible holiness
and happiness for ever. The ‘penalty’ threatened and executed was
death; ‘The day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’ The nature
of the death threatened can be determined only from a consideration of
all that was involved in the curse actually inflicted. This we know to
have included the instant withdrawal of the divine favor and spiritual
intercommunion upon which man’s life depended. Hence the alienation and
curse of God; the sense of guilt and corruption of nature; consequent
actual transgressions, the miseries of life, the dissolution of the
body, the pains of hell.” [34]

The consequences of Adam’s sin are all comprehended under the term
death, in its widest sense. Paul gives us the summary statement that
“The wages of sin is death.” The full import of the death which was
threatened to Adam can only be seen by considering all the evil
consequences which have since befallen man. It was primarily spiritual
death, or eternal separation from God, which was threatened; and
physical death, or the death of the body, is but one of the first
fruits and relatively unimportant consequences of that greater penalty.
Adam did not die physically for 930 years after the fall, but he did
die spiritually the very moment he fell into sin. He died just as
really as the fish dies when taken from the water, or as the plant dies
when taken from the soil.

“In general we cherish a very wrong idea as to how Adam fell . . . .
Adam was not tempted by Satan in a direct way . . . . Eve was tempted
by Satan, and Eve fell being deceived. But we have inspired evidence to
prove that Adam was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). He was caught by no
wiles of Satan, but that which he did, he did wilfully and
deliberately. And in the full consciousness of what he was doing, and
with a perfect realization of the solemn consequences which were
involved, he deliberately chose to follow his wife in her act of sinful
disobedience. It was this deliberate wilfulness of man’s sin which
constituted its heinous character. Had he been attacked by Satan, and
forced to yield through some overwhelming power being brought against
him, we might have tried to find some excuse for his fall. But when,
with eyes wide open, and with mind perfectly conscious and fully aware
of the awful nature of his act, he used his free will to respond to the
claims of the creature in defiance of the Creator, no excuse can he
found for his fall. His act, in reality, was wilful, defiant rebellion,
and by it he openly transferred his allegiance from God to Satan.” [35]

And has there not been a fall–a fearful fall? The more we see of human
nature as it is manifested in the world about us, the easier it is to
believe in this great doctrine of original sin. Consider the world as a
whole, filled as it is with murders, robberies, drunkenness, wars,
broken homes, and crimes of all kinds. The thousand ingenious forms
which crime and vice have assumed in the hands of regular practitioners
are all tokens telling a fearful tale. A large portion of the human
race today, as in all past ages, is left to live and die in the
darkness of heathenism, hopelessly astray from God. Modernism and
denial of every kind is rampant even in the Church. Even the religious
press, so called, is strongly tinged with unbelief. Observe the general
disinclination to pray, or to study the Bible, or to speak of spiritual
things. Is not man now, as his progenitor Adam, fleeing from the
presence of God, not wanting communion with Him, and with enmity in his
heart for his Creator? Surely man’s nature is radically wrong. The
daily newspaper accounts of events, even in such an enlightened land as
America, show that man is sinful, lost from God, and actuated by unholy
principles. And the only adequate explanation of all this is that the
penalty of death, which was threatened on man before the fall, now
rests on the human race.

We live in a lost world, a world which if left to itself would fester
in its corruption from eternity to eternity,–a world reeking with
iniquity and blasphemy. The effects of the fall are such that man’s
will in itself tends only downward to sets of sin and folly. As a
matter of fact God does not permit the race to become as corrupt as it
naturally would if left to itself. He exercises restraining influences,
inciting men to love one another, to be honest, philanthropic, and
considerate of each others welfare. Unless God exercised these
influences, wicked men would become worse and worse, overlapping
conventions and social barriers, until the very zenith of lawlessness
would soon be reached, and the earth would become so utterly corrupt
that the elect could not live on it.

5. THE REPRESENTATIVE PRINCIPLE

It is easy for us to understand how a person may act through a
representative, The people of a state act in and through their
representatives in the Legislature, If a country has a good president
or king, all of the people share the good results; if a bad president
or king, all suffer the consequences. In a very real sense parents
stand representative for, and to a large extent decide the destinies
of, their children. If the parents are wise, virtuous, thrifty, the
children reap the blessings; but if they are indolent and immoral the
children suffer. In a thousand ways the well-being of individuals is
conditioned by the acts of others, so inwrought is this representative
principle into our human life. Hence in the Scripture doctrine that
Adam stood as the official head and representative of his people we
have only the application of a principle which we see at work all about
us.

Dr. Charles Hodge has very ably treated this subject in the following
section:–

“This representative principle pervades the whole Scriptures. The
imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity is not an isolated fact. It
is only an illustration of a general principle which characterizes the
dispensations of God from the beginning of the world. God declared
Himself to Moses as one who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children, and upon the children’s children unto the third and to the
fourth generation, Exodus 34:6, 7 . . . . The curse pronounced on
Canaan fell on his posterity. Esau’s selling his birthright, shut out
his descendants from the covenant of promise. The children of Moab and
Ammon were excluded from the congregation of the Lord forever, because
their ancestors opposed the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. In
the case of Dathan and Abiram, as in that of Achan, ‘their wives, and
their sons, and their little children perished for the sins of their
parents. God said to Eli, that the iniquity of his house should not be
purged with sacrifice and offering for ever. To David it was said, ‘The
sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised me,
and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.’ To the
disobedient Gehazi it was said: ‘The leprosy of Naaman shall cleave
unto thee and unto thy seed forever.’ The sin of Jeroboam and of the
men of his generation determined the destiny of the ten tribes for all
time. The imprecation of the Jews, when they demanded the crucifixion
of Christ, ‘His blood be on us and on our children,’ still weighs down
the scattered people of Israel …. This principle runs through the
whole Scriptures. When God entered into covenant with Abraham, it was
not for himself only but also for his posterity. They were bound by all
the stipulations of the covenant. They shared its promises and its
threatenings, and in hundreds of cases the penalty of disobedience came
upon those who had no personal part in the transgressions. Children
suffered equally with adults in the judgments, Whether famine,
pestilence, or war, which came upon the people for their sins . . . .
And the Jews to this day are suffering the penalty of the sins of their
fathers for their rejection of Him of whom Moses and the prophets
spoke. The whole plan of redemption rests on this same principle.
Christ is the representative of His people, and on this ground their
sins are imputed to Him and His righteousness to them . . . . No man
who believes the Bible, can shut his eyes to the fact that it
everywhere recognizes the representative character of parents, and that
the dispensations of God have from the beginning been founded on the
principle that the children bear the iniquities of their fathers. This
is one of the reasons which infidels assign for rejecting the divine
origin of the Scriptures. But infidelity furnishes no relief. History
is as full of this doctrine as the Bible is. The punishment of the
felon involves his family in his disgrace and misery. The spendthrift
and drunkard entail poverty and wretchedness upon all connected with
them. There is no nation now existing on the face of the earth, whose
condition for weal or woe is net largely determined by the character
and conduct of their ancestors . . . The idea of the transfer of guilt
or of vicarious punishment lies at the foundation of all the expiatory
offerings under the Old Testament, and of the great atonement under the
new dispensation. To bear sin, is in Scriptural language to bear the
penalty of sin. The victim bore the sin of the offerer. Hands were
imposed upon the head of the animal about to be slaughtered, to express
the transfer of guilt. That animal must be free from all defect or
blemish to make it the more apparent that its blood was shed not for
its own deficiencies but for the sin of another. All this was
symbolical and typical . . . . And this is what the Scriptures teach
concerning the Atonement of Christ. He bore our sins; He was made a
curse for us; He suffered the penalty of the law in our stead. All this
proceeds on the ground that the sins of one man can be justly, on some
adequate ground, imputed to another.” [36]

The Scriptures tell us that, “By one man’s disobedience the many were
made sinners,” Romans 5:19. “Through one man sin entered into the
world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for
that all sinned,” Romans 5:12. “Through one trespass the judgment came
unto all men to condemnation” Romans 5:18. It is as if God had said: If
sin is to enter, let it enter by one man, so that righteousness also
may enter by one man.

Adam was made not only the father but also the representative of the
whole human race. And if we fully understood the closeness of the
relation between him and them we would fully realize the justice of the
transmission of his sin to them. Adam’s sin is imputed to his
descendants in the same way that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to
those who believe in Him. Adam’s descendants are, of course, no more
personally guilty of his sin than Christ’s redeemed are personally
meritorious of His righteousness.

Suffering and death are declared to be the consequence of sin; and the
reason that all die is that “all sinned.” Now we know that many suffer
and die in infancy, before they have committed any sin themselves. It
follows that either God is unjust in punishing the innocent, or that
those infants are in some way guilty creatures. And if guilty, how have
they sinned? It is impossible to explain it on any other supposition
than that they sinned in Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:12, 18);
and they could not have sinned in him in any other way than by
representation.

But while we are not personally guilty of Adam’s sin, we are,
nevertheless, liable to punishment for it. “The guilt of Adam’s public
sin,” says Dr. A. A. Hodge, “is by a judicial act of God immediately
charged to the account of each and every one of his descendants from
the moment he begins to exist, and antecedently to any act of his own.
Hence all men come into existence deprived of all those influences of
the Holy Spirit upon which their moral and spiritual life depends . . .
. and with an antecedent prevailing tendency in their natures to sin;
which tendency in them is itself of the nature of sin, and worthy of
punishment. Human nature since the fall retains its constitutional
faculties of reason, conscience and free agency, and hence man
continues to be a responsible moral agent. Yet he is spiritually dead,
and totally averse to and incapable of the discharge of any of these
duties which spring out of his relation to God, and entirely unable to
change his own evil dispositions or innate moral tendencies, or to
dispose himself to such a change, or to co-operate with the Holy Spirit
in effecting such a change.” [37]

And to the same general effect, Dr. R. L. Dabney, the outstanding
theologian of the southern Presbyterian Church, says. “The explanation
presented by the doctrine of imputation is demanded by all except
Pelagians and Socinians. Man’s is a spiritually dead and a condemned
race. See Ephesians 2:1-5, et passim. He is obviously under a curse for
something, from the beginning of his life. Witness the native depravity
of infants, and their inheritance of woe and death. Now, either man was
tried and fell in Adam, or he has been condemned without trial. He is
either under the curse (as it rests on him at the beginning of his
existence) for Adam’s guilt, or for no guilt at all. Judge which is
most honorable to God, a doctrine which, although a profound mystery,
represents Him as giving man an equitable and most favored probation in
his federal head; or that which makes God condemn him untried, and even
before he exists.” [38]

6. THE GOODNESS AND SEVERITY OF GOD

A survey of the fall and its extent is humiliating work. It proves to
man that all his claims of goodness are unfounded, and it shows him
that his only hope is in the sovereign grace of Almighty God. The
“graciously restored ability” of which the Arminian talks is not
consistent with the facts. The Scriptures, history, and Christian
experience by no means warrant such a favorable view of the natural
moral condition of man as the Arminian system teaches. On the contrary
each of these gives us a very gloomy picture of a fearful corruption
and universal inclination to evil, which can only be overcome by the
intervention of divine grace. The Calvinistic system teaches a far
deeper fall into sin and a far more glorious manifestation of redeeming
grace. From these depths the Christian is led to despair of himself, to
throw himself unconditionally into the arms of God, and to lay hold on
unmerited grace, which alone can save him.

We should see God’s mercy and also His severity in the spiritual and
physical realms. Life is full of hard facts which, unpleasant though
they may be, must simply be faced and admitted. Throughout the
Scriptures, and especially in the words of Christ Himself, the final
torments of the wicked are described in such ways as to show us that
they are indescribably awful. In the gospel of Matthew alone see 5:29,
30; 7:19; 10:28; 11:21-24; 13:30, 41, 42, 49, 50; 18:8, 9, 34; 21:41;
22:14; 24:51; 25:12, 30, 41; and 26:24. Surely a doctrine which
received such emphasis from the lips of Christ Himself cannot be passed
over in silence distasteful though it may be. In the next world the
wicked, with all restraint removed, will go headlong into sin,
blaspheming and cursing God, growing worse and worse as they sink
deeper and deeper into the bottomless pit. Endless punishment is the
penalty of ENDLESS sinning. Furthermore, it is as much the glory of God
that He punishes the wicked as that He rewards the righteous. Much of
the easy-going indifference toward Christianity in our day is due to
the failure of Christian ministers to emphasize these doctrines which
Christ taught so repeatedly.

In the physical realm we see God’s severity in wars, famines, floods,
disasters, diseases, sufferings, deaths, and crimes of all kind which
come upon the just and the unjust alike. All of these exist in a world
which is under the complete control of a God who is infinite in His
perfections.

“Behold then the goodness and severity of God,” Romans 11:22.
Naturalism does justice to neither of these. Arminianism magnifies the
first but neglects the second. Calvinism is the only system which does
justice to both. It alone adequately sets forth the facts in regard to
the eternal and infinite love of God which caused Him to provide
redemption for His people, even at the great cost of sending His
only-begotten Son to die on the cross; and also in regard to the awful
abyss which exists between sinful man and the holy God. It is true that
“God is love,” but along with this must be placed the other statement
that “our God is a consuming fire,” Hebrews 12:29. Any system which
omits or under-emphasizes either of these truths will be a mutilated
system, no matter how plausible it way sound to men.

This doctrine of the Total Inability of man is terribly stern, severe,
forbidding. But it is to be remembered that we are not at liberty to
develop a new system suited to our liking. We must take the facts as we
find them. Such exhibitions of the true state of mankind are, of
course, offensive to unregenerate men generally; and many have tried to
find out a system of doctrines more palatable to the popular mind. The
state of fallen man is such that he readily listens to any theory which
makes him even partly independent of God; he wishes to be the master of
his fate and the captain of his soul. The lost, ruined, and helpless
state of the sinner needs to be constantly set before him; for until be
is brought to feel it, he will never seek help where alone it is to be
found. Poor man! truly carnal and sold under sin, not only without
power but without inclination to move toward God; and what is more
awful still, an actual rebel a presumptuous, blasphemous rival of the
Great Jehovah.

This doctrine of Total Inability, or Original Sin, has been treated at
some length in order to set forth the fundamental basis upon which the
doctrine of Predestination rests. This side of the picture is dark,
very dark indeed; but its supplement is the glory of God in redemption.
Each of these truths must be seen in its true light before the other
can be adequately appreciated.

7. SCRIPTURE PROOF

1 Corinthians 2:14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know
them, because they are spiritually judged.

Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt
not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die.

Romans 5:12: Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world,
and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all
sinned.

2 Corinthians 1:9: Yea, we ourselves had the sentence of death within
ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who
raiseth the dead.

Ephesians 2:1-3: And you did He make alive, when ye were dead through
your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the
course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air,
of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom
ye also all once lived in the lusts of your flesh, doing the desires of
the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even
as the rest.

Ephesians 2:12: Ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of
promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Jeremiah 13:23: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his
spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Psalm 51:5: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my
mother conceive me.

John 3:3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Except one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Romans 3:10-12: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one;
There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;
They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable;
There is none that doeth good. no, not so much as one.

Job 14:4: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

1 Corinthians 1:18: For the word of the cross is to them that perish
foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.

Acts 13:41: Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish; For I work a
work in your days, A work which ye shall in no wise believe, if one
declare it unto you.

Proverbs 30:12: There is a generation that are pure in their own eye,
And yet are not washed from their filthiness.

John 5:21: For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life,
even so the Son also giveth life to whom He will.

John 6:53: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His
blood, ye have not life in yourselves.

John 8:19: They said therefore unto Him, Where is thy Father? Jesus
answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father; if ye knew me, ye would
know my Father also.

Matthew 11:25: I thank thee, O Father Lord of heaven and earth, that
thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst
reveal them unto babes.

2 Corinthians 5:17: If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature.

John 14:16: (And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another
Comforter, that He may be with you forever,) even the Spirit of truth:
whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth Him not, neither
knoweth Him; ye know Him; for He abideth with you, and shall be in you.

John 3:19: And this is the judgment, that light is come unto the world,
and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were
evil.
__________________________________________________________________

[28] Ch. IX, sec. III

[29] Bondage of the Will, p. 125.

[30] Warburton, Calvinism, p. 48.

[31] Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, p. 440.

[32] What is Calvinism, pp. 125-127.

[33] A. A. Hodge, pamphlet, Presbyterian Doctrine, p. 23.

[34] A. A. Hodge, pamphlet, Presbyterian Doctrine, pp. 19, 20.

[35] Warburton, Calvinism, p. 34.

[36] Systematic Theology, II, pp. 198, 199, 201.

[37] Presbyterian Doctrine, p. 21.

[38] Theology, p. 330.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XI

Unconditional Election

1. Statement of the Doctrine. 2. Proof from Scripture. 3. Proof from
Reason. 4. Faith and Good Works are the Fruits and Proof, not the
Basis, of Election. 5. Reprobation. 6. Infralapsarianism and
Supralapsarianism. 7. Many are Chosen. 8. A Redeemed World or Race. 9.
Vastness of the Redeemed Multitude. 10. The World is Growing Better.
11. Infant Salvation. 12. Summary.
__________________________________________________________________

1. STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE

The doctrine of Election is to be looked upon as only a particular
application of the general doctrine of Predestination or Foreordination
as it relates to the salvation of sinners; and since the Scriptures are
concerned mainly with the redemption of sinners, this part of the
doctrine is naturally thrown up into a place of special prominence. It
partakes of all the elements of the general doctrine; and since it is
the act of an infinite moral Person, it is represented as being the
eternal, absolute, immutable, effective determination by His will of
the objects of His saving operations. And no aspect of this elective
choice is more constantly emphasized than that of its absolute
sovereignty.

The Reformed Faith has held to the existence of an eternal, divine
decree which, antecedently to any difference or desert in men
themselves separates the human race into two portions and ordains one
to everlasting life and the other to everlasting death. So far as this
decree relates to men it designates the counsel of God concerning those
who had a supremely favorable chance in Adam to earn salvation, but who
lost that chance. As a result of the fall they are guilty and
corrupted; their motives are wrong and they cannot work out their own
salvation. They have forfeited all claim upon God’s mercy, and might
justly have been left to suffer the penalty of their disobedience as
all of the fallen angels were left. But instead the elect members of
this race are rescued from this state of guilt and sin and are brought
into a state of blessedness and holiness. The non-elect are simply left
in their previous state of ruin, and are condemned for their sins. They
suffer no unmerited punishment, for God is dealing with them not merely
as men but as sinners.

The Westminster Confession states the doctrine thus: “By the decree of
God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are
predestinated to everlasting life, and others are foreordained to
everlasting death.

“These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are
particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain
and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

“Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the
foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and
immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His
will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere
grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or
perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as
conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of
His glorious grace.

“As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal
and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means
thereunto. Whereby they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are
redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His
Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and
kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other
redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified,
and saved, but the elect only.

“The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable
counsel of His will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He
pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to
pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of His glorious justice.” [39]

It is important that we shall have a clear understanding of this
doctrine of divine Election, for our views in regard to it determine
our views of God, man, the world, and redemption. As Calvin rightly
says, “We shall never be clearly convinced as we ought to be that our
salvation flows from the fountain of God’s free mercy, till we are
acquainted with this eternal election, which illustrates the grace of
God by this comparison, that He adopts not all promiscuously to the
hope of salvation but gives to some what he refuses to others.
Ignorance of this principle evidently detracts from the divine glory,
and diminishes real humility.” [40] Calvin admits that this doctrine
arouses very perplexing questions in the minds of some, for, says he,
“they consider nothing more unreasonable than that of the common mass
of mankind, some should be predestinated to salvation; and others to
destruction.”

The Reformed theologians consistently applied this principle to the
actual experience of spiritual phenomena which they themselves felt and
saw in others about them. The divine purpose, or Predestination, alone
could explain the distinction between good and evil, between the saint
and the sinner.
__________________________________________________________________

[39] Ch. III, sections III-VII.

[40] Institutes, Book III, Ch. XXI, sec. I.
__________________________________________________________________

2. PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE

The first question which we need to ask ourselves then, is, Do we find
this doctrine taught in the Scriptures? Let us turn to Paul’s letter to
the Ephesians. There we read: “He chose us in Him before the foundation
of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before Him in
love; having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ
unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,” 1:4, 5. In
Romans 8:29, 30 we read of that golden chain of redemption which
stretches from the eternity that is past to the eternity that is to
come,–”For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to
the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many
brethren; and whom He foreordained, them He also called: and whom He
called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also
glorified.” Foreknown, foreordained, called, justified, glorified, with
always the same people included in each group; and where one of these
factors is present, all the others are in principle present with it.

Paul has cast the verse in the past tense because with God the purpose
is in principle executed when formed, so certain is it of fulfillment.
“These five golden links,” says Dr. Warfield, “are welded together in
one unbreakable chain, so that all who are set upon in God’s gracious
distinguishing view are carried on by His grace, step by step, up to
the great consummation of that glorification which realizes the
promised conformity to the image of God’s own Son. It is ‘election,’
you see, that does all this; for ‘whom He foreknew, . . . . . them He
also glorified’.” [41]

The Scriptures represent election as occurring in past time,
irrespective of personal merit, and altogether sovereign,–”The
children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad,
that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of
works, but of Him that calleth, it was said to her, The elder shall
serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I
hated,” Romans 9:11, 12. Now if the doctrine of election is not true,
we may safely challenge any man to tell us what the apostle means by
such language. “We are pointed illustratively to the sovereign
acceptance of Isaac and rejection of Ishmael, and to the choice of
Jacob and not of Esau before their birth and therefore before either
had done good or bad; we are explicitly told that in the matter of
salvation it is not of him that wills, or of him that runs, but of God
that shows mercy, and that He has mercy on whom He will, and whom He
will He hardens; we are pointedly directed to behold in God the potter
who makes the vessels which proceed from His hand each for an end of
His appointment, that He may work out His will upon them. It is safe to
say that language cannot be chosen better adapted to teach
Predestination at its height.” [42]

Even if we were without any other inspired utterances than those quoted
from Paul, so clear and unambiguous are those that we should be
constrained to admit that the doctrine of Election finds a place in
Scripture. By looking at the Scripture references in the Confession of
Faith, we find that it is abundantly sustained in the Bible. If we
admit the inspiration of the Bible; if we admit that the writings of
the prophets and apostles were breathed by the Spirit of God, and are
thus infallible, then what we find there will be sufficient; and thus
on the irrefutable testimony of the Scriptures we must acknowledge
Election, or Predestination, to be an established truth, and one which
we must receive if we are to possess the whole counsel of God. Every
Christian must believe in some kind of election; for while the
Scriptures leave unexplained many things about the doctrine of
Election, they make very plain the FACT that there has been an
election.

Christ explicitly declared to His disciples, “Ye did not choose me, but
I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit,” John
15:16, by which He made God’s choice primary and man’s choice only
secondary and a result of the former. The Arminian, however, in making
salvation depend upon man’s choice to use or abuse proffered grace
reverses this order and makes man’s choice the primary and decisive
one. There is no place in the Scriptures for an election which is
carefully adjusted to the foreseen actions of the creature. The divine
will is never made dependent on the creaturely will for its
determinations.

Again the sovereignty of this choice is clearly taught when Paul
declares that God commended His love toward us in that while we were
yet sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8), and that Christ died for
the ungodly (Romans 5:6). Here we see that His love was not extended
toward us because we were good, but in spite of the fact that we were
bad. It is God who chooses the person and causes him to approach unto
Him (Psalm 65:4). Arminianism takes this choice out of the hands of God
and places it in the hands of man. Any system which substitutes a
man-made election falls below the Scripture teaching on this subject.

In the darkest days of Israel’s apostasy, as in every other age, it was
this principle of election which made a difference between mankind and
kept a remnant secure. “Yet will I leave me seven thousand in Israel,
all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which
hath not kissed him,” 1 Kings 19:18. These seven thousand did not stand
by their own strength; it is expressly said that God reserved them to
Himself, that they might be a remnant.

It is for the sake of the elect that God governs the course of all
history (Mark 13:20). They are “the salt of the earth,” and “the light
of the world;” and so far at least in the world’s history they are the
few through whom the many are blessed,–God blessed the household of
Potiphar for Joseph’s sake; and ten righteous people would have saved
the city of Sodom. Their election, of course, includes the opportunity
of hearing the gospel and receiving the gifts of grace, for without
these means the great end of election would not be attained. They are,
in fact, elected to all that is included in the idea of eternal life.

Apart from this election of individuals to life, there has been what we
may call a national election, or a divine predestination of nations and
communities to a knowledge of true religion and to the external
privileges of the Gospel. God undoubtedly does choose some nations to
receive much greater spiritual and temporal blessings than others. This
form of election has been well illustrated in the Jewish nation, in
certain European nations and communities, and in America. The contrast
is very striking when we compare these with other nations such as
China, Japan, India, etc.

Throughout the Old Testament it is repeatedly stated that the Jews were
a chosen people. “You only have I known of all the families of the
earth,” Amos 3:2. “He hath not dealt so with any (other) nation; And as
for His ordinances, they have not known them,” Psalm 147:20. “For thou
art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen
thee to be a people for His own possession, above all the peoples that
are upon the face of the earth,” Deuteronomy 7:6. It is made equally
plain that God found no merit or dignity in the Jews themselves which
moved Him to choose them above others. “Jehovah did not set His love
upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any other
people; for ye were the fewest of all peoples: but because Jehovah
loveth you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore unto your
fathers, hath Jehovah brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed
you out of the house of bondage from the hand of Pharaoh king of
Egypt.” Deuteronomy 7:7, 8. And again, “Only Jehovah had a delight in
thy fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after them, even
above all peoples,” Deuteronomy 10:15. Here it is carefully explained,
that Israel was honored with the divine choice in contrast with the
treatment accorded all the other peoples of the earth, that the choice
rested solely on the unmerited love of God, and that It had no
foundation in Israel itself.

When Paul was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel in the
province of Asia, and was given the vision of a man in Europe calling
across the waters, “Come over into Macedonia, and help us,” one section
of the world was sovereignly excluded from, and another section was
sovereignly given, the privileges of the Gospel. Had the divinely
directed call been rather from the shores of India, Europe and America
might today have been less civilized than the natives of Tibet. It was
the sovereign choice of God which brought the Gospel to the people of
Europe and later to America, while the people of the east, and north,
and south were left in darkness. We can assign no reason, for instance,
why it should have been Abraham’s seed, and not the Egyptians or the
Assyrians, who were chosen; or why Great Britain and America, which at
the time of Christ’s appearance on earth were in a state of such
complete ignorance, should today possess so largely for themselves, and
be disseminating so widely to others, these most important spiritual
privileges. The diversities in regard to religious privileges in the
different nations is to be ascribed to nothing else than the good
pleasure of God.

A third form of election taught in Scripture is that of individuals to
the external means of grace, such as hearing and reading the Gospel,
association with the people of God, and sharing the benefits of the
civilization which has arisen where the Gospel has gone. No one ever
had the chance to say at what particular time in the world’s history,
or in what country, he would be born, whether or not he would be a
member of the white race, or of some other. One child is born with
health, wealth, and honor, in a favored land, in a Christian home, and
grows up with all the blessings which attend the full light of the
Gospel. Another is born in poverty and dishonor, of sinful and
dissipated parents, and destitute of Christian influences. All of these
things are sovereignly decided for them. Surely no one would insist
that the favored child has any personal merit which could be the ground
for this difference. Furthermore, was it not of God’s own choosing that
He created us human beings, in His own image, when He might have
created us cattle or horses or dogs? Or who would allow the dumb brutes
to revile God for their condition in life as though the distinction was
unjust? All of these things are due to God’s overruling providence, and
not to human choice. “Arminians have labored to reconcile all this, as
a matter of fact, with their defective and erroneous views of the
Divine sovereignty, and with their unscriptural doctrines of universal
grace and universal redemption; but they have not usually been
satisfied themselves with their own attempts at explanation, and have
commonly at last admitted, that there were mysteries in this matter
which could not be explained, and which must just be resolved into the
sovereignty of God and the unsearchableness of His counsels.” [43]

We may perhaps mention a fourth kind of election, that of individuals
to certain vocations,–the gifts of special talents which fit one to be
a statesman, another to be a doctor, or lawyer, or farmer, or musician,
or artisan, gifts of personal beauty, intelligence, disposition, etc.
These four kinds of election are in principle the same. Arminians
escape no real difficulty in admitting the second, third, and fourth,
while denying the first. In each instance God gives to some what He
withholds from others. Conditions in the world at large and our own
experiences in every day life show us that the blessings bestowed are
sovereign and unconditional, irrespective of any previous merit or
action on the part of those so chosen. If we are highly favored, we can
only be thankful for His blessings; if not highly favored, we have no
grounds for complaint. Why precisely this or that one is placed in
circumstances which lead to saving faith, while others are not so
placed, is indeed, a mystery. We cannot explain the workings of
Providence; but we do know that the Judge of all the earth shall do
right, and that when we attain to perfect knowledge we shall see that
He has sufficient reasons for all His acts.

Furthermore, it may be said that in general the outward conditions with
which the individual is surrounded do determine his destiny,–at least
to this extent, that those from whom the Gospel is withheld have no
chance for salvation. Cunningham has stated this very well in the
following paragraph:–”There is an invariable connection established in
Gods government of the world, between the enjoyment of outward
privileges, or the means of grace, on the one hand, and faith and
salvation on the other; in this sense, and to this extent, that the
negation of the first implies the negation of the second. We are
warranted by the whole tenor of Scripture, in maintaining that where
God, in His sovereignty, withholds from men the enjoyment of the means
of grace,–an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the only way of
salvation,–He at the same time, and by the same means, or ordination,
withholds from them the opportunity and power of believing and being
saved.” [44]

Calvinists maintain that God deals not only with mankind in the mass
but with the individuals who are actually saved, that He has elected
particular persons to eternal life and to all the means necessary for
attaining that life. They admit that some of the passages in which
election is mentioned teach only an election of nations, or an election
to outward privileges, but they maintain that many other passages teach
exclusively and only an election of individuals to eternal life.

There are some, of course, who deny that there has been any such thing
as an election at all. They start at the very word as though it were a
spectre just come from the shades and never seen before. And yet, in
the New Testament alone, the words eklektos, ekloga, and eklego, elect,
election, choose, are found some forty-seven or forty-eight times (see
Young’s Analytical Concordance for complete lists). Others accept the
word but attempt to explain away the thing. They profess to believe in
a “conditional election,” based, as they suppose, upon foreseen faith
and evangelical obedience in its objects. This, of course, destroys
election in any intelligible sense of the term, and reduces it to a
mere recognition or prophecy that at some future time certain persons
will be possessed of those qualities. If based on faith and evangelical
obedience, then, as it has been cynically phrased, God is careful to
elect only those whom He foresees will elect themselves. In the
Arminian system election is reduced to a mere word or name, the use of
which only tends to involve the subject in greater obscurity and
confusion. A mere recognition that those qualities will be present at
some future time is, of course, an election falsely so-called, or
simply no election at all. And some Arminians, consistently carrying
out their own doctrine that the person may or may not accept, and that
if he does accept he may fall away again, identify the time of this
decree of election with the death of the believer, as if only then his
salvation became certain.

Election extends not only to men but also and equally to the angels
since they also are a part of God’s creation and are under His
government. Some of these are holy and happy, others are sinful and
miserable. The same reasons which lead us to believe in a
predestination of men also lead us to believe in a predestination of
angels. The Scriptures confirm this view by references to “elect
angels,” 1 Timothy 5:21, and “holy angels,” Mark 8:38, which are
contrasted with wicked angels or demons. We read that God “spared not
angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them
to pits of darkness to be reserved unto judgment,” 2 Peter 2:4; of the
“eternal fire which is prepared for the Devil and his angels,” Matthew
25:41; of “angels that kept not their own principality, but left their
former habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness
unto the Judgment of the great day,” Jude 6; and of “Michael and his
angels going forth to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and
his angels,” Revelation 12:7. A study of these passages shows us that,
as Dabney says, “there are two kinds of spirits of that order; holy and
sinful angels, servants of Christ and servants of Satan; that they were
created in an estate of holiness and happiness, and abode in the region
called Heaven (God’s holiness and goodness are sufficient proof that He
would never have created them otherwise); that the evil angels
voluntarily forfeited their estate by sinning, and were excluded
forever from heaven and holiness; that those who maintained their
estate were elected thereto by God, and that their estate of holiness
and blessedness is now forever assured.” [45]

Paul makes no attempt to explain how God can be just in showing mercy
to whom He will and in passing by whom He will. In answer to the
objector’s question, “Why doth He still find fault?” (with those to
whom He has not extended saving mercy), he (Paul) simply resolves the
whole thing into the sovereignty of God, by replying, “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? Or hath not the potter
a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel
unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” Romans 9:19-21. (And let it be
noticed here that Paul says that it is not from different kinds of
clay, but “from the same lump,” that God, as the potter, makes one
vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor.) Paul does not drag God
from His throne and set Him before our human reason to be questioned
and examined. These secret counsels of His, which even the angels adore
with trembling and desire to look into, are left unexplained, except
that they are said to be according to His own good pleasure. And after
Paul has stated this, he puts forth his hand, as it were, to forbid us
from going any further. Had the Arminian assumption been true, namely,
that all men are given sufficient grace and that each one is rewarded
or punished according to his own use or abuse of this grace, there
would have been no difficulty for which to account.

FURTHER SCRIPTURE PROOF

2 Thessalonians 2:13: God chose you from the beginning unto salvation
in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Matthew 24:24: There shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and
shall show great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible,
even the elect.

Matthew 24:31: And they (the angels) shall gather together His elect
from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mark 13:20: For the elect’s sake, whom He chose, He shortened those
days (at the destruction of Jerusalem).

1 Thessalonians 1:4: Knowing, brethren, beloved of God, your election.

Romans 11:7: The election obtained it, and the rest were hardened.

1 Timothy 5:21: I charge thee in the sight of God, and Jesus Christ,
and the elect angels.

Romans 8:33: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?

Romans 11:5: (In comparison with Elijah’s time) Even so at the present
time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

2 Timothy 2:10: I endure all things for the elect’s sake.

Titus 1:1: Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
according to the faith of God’s elect.

1 Peter 1:1: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect.

1 Peter 5:13: She that is in Babylon, elect together with you.

1 Peter 2:9: But ye are an elect race.

1 Thessalonians 5:9: For God appointed us not unto wrath, but unto the
obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 18:48: And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and
glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life
believed.

John 17:9: I (Jesus) pray not for the world, but for those whom thou
hast given me; for they are thine.

John 6:37: All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me.

John 6:65: No man can come unto me. except it be given unto him of the
Father.

John 13:18: I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen.

John 15:16: Ye did not choose me, but I chose you.

Psalm 105:6: Ye children of Jacob, His chosen ones.

Romans 9:23: Vessels of mercy, which He afore prepared unto glory.
(See also references already quoted in this chapter; Ephesians 1:4, 5,
11; Romans 9:11-13; 8:29, 30; etc.)
__________________________________________________________________

[41] Pamphlet, Election, p. 10.

[42] Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, p. 50.

[43] Cunningham, Historical Theology, II, p. 398.

[44] Historical Theology, II, p. 467.

[45] Theology, p. 230.
__________________________________________________________________

3. PROOF FROM REASON

If the doctrine of Total Inability or Original Sin be admitted, the
doctrine of unconditional Election follows by the most inescapable
logic. If, as the Scriptures and experience tell us, all men are by
nature in a state of guilt and depravity from which they are wholly
unable to deliver themselves and have no claim whatever on God for
deliverance, it follows that if any are saved God must choose out those
who shall be the objects of His grace. His love for fallen men
expressed itself in the choice of an innumerable multitude of them for
salvation, and in the provision of a redeemer, who, acting as their
federal head and representative, assumed their guilt, paid their
penalty, and earned their salvation. It is always to the love of God
that the Scriptures ascribe the elective decree, and they are never
weary of raising our eyes from the decree itself to the motive which
lay behind it. The doctrine that men are saved only through the
unmerited love and grace of God finds its full and honest expression
only in the doctrines of Calvinism.

Through the election of individuals the truly gracious character of
salvation is most clearly shown. Those who declare that salvation is
entirely by the grace of God, and yet deny the doctrine of election,
hold an inconsistent position. The inspired writers leave no means
unused to drive home the fact that God’s election of men is an
absolutely sovereign one, founded solely upon His unmerited love, and
designed to exhibit before men and angels His grace and saving mercy.

As Ruler and Judge, God is at liberty to deal with a world of sinners
according to His own good pleasure. He can rightfully pardon some and
condemn others; can rightfully give His saving grace to one and not to
another. Since all have sinned and come short of His glory, He is free
to have mercy on whom He will have mercy. It is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God who showeth mercy; and the
reason why any are saved, and why one rather than another is saved, is
to be found alone in the good pleasure of Him who ordereth all things
after the counsel of His own will. It is for this reason that before
God created the world He chose all those to whom He would freely give
the inheritance of eternal blessedness, and the Biblical writers take
special pains to give each individual believer in all the enormous
multitude of the saved the assurance that from all eternity he has been
the peculiar object of the divine choice, and is only now fulfilling
the high destiny designed for him from the foundation of the world.

This doctrine of eternal and unconditional election has sometimes been
called the “heart” of the Reformed Faith. It emphasizes the sovereignty
and grace of God in salvation, while the Arminian view emphasizes the
work of faith and obedience in the man who decides to accept the
offered grace. In the Calvinistic system it is God alone who chooses
those who are to be the heirs of heaven, those with whom He will share
His riches in glory; while in the Arminian system it is, in the
ultimate analysis, man who determines this,–a principle somewhat
lacking in humility to say the least.

It may be asked, Why does God save some and not others? But that
belongs to His secret counsels. Precisely why this man receives, and
that man does not receive, when neither deserves to receive, we are not
told. That God was pleased to set upon us in this His electing grace
must ever remain for us a matter of adoring wonder. Certainly there was
nothing in us, whether of quality or deed, which could attract His
favorable notice or make Him partial to us; for we were dead in
trespasses and sins and children of wrath even as others (Ephesians
2:1-3). We can only admire, and wonder, and exclaim with Paul, “O the
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how
unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past tracing out!” The
marvel of marvels is not that God, in His infinite love and justice,
has not elected all of this guilty race to be saved, but that He has
elected any. When we consider, on the one hand, what a heinous thing
sin is, together with its desert of punishment, and on the other, what
holiness is, together with God’s perfect hatred for sin, the marvel is
that God could get the consent of His holy nature to save a single
sinner. Furthermore, the reason that God did not choose all to eternal
life was not because He did not wish to save all, but that for reasons
which we cannot fully explain a universal choice would have been
inconsistent with His perfect righteousness.

Nor may any one object that this view represents God an acting
arbitrarily and without reason. To assert that is to assert more than
any man knows. His reasons for saving particular ones while passing
others by have not been revealed to us. “He doeth according to His will
in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth,”
Daniel 4:35. Some are foreordained as sons, “according to the good
pleasure of His will,” Ephesians 1:5; but that does not mean that He
has no reasons for choosing one and leaving another. When a regiment is
decimated for insubordination, the fact that every tenth man is chosen
for death is for reasons; but the reasons are not in the men.

Undoubtedly God has the best of reasons for choosing one and rejecting
another, although He has not told what they are.

“May not the Sov’reign Lord on high
Dispense His favors as He will;
Choose some to life, while others die,
And yet be just and gracious still?
Shall man reply against the Lord,
And call his Maker’s ways unjust?
The thunder whose dread word
Can crush a thousand worlds to dust.

But, O my soul, if truths so bright
Should dazzle and confound thy sight,
‘Yet still His written will obey,
And wait the great decisive day!” [46]
__________________________________________________________________

[46] quoted by Ness, Antidote Against Arminianism, p. 34.
__________________________________________________________________

4. FAITH AND GOOD WORKS ARE THE FRUITS AND PROOF, NOT THE BASIS, OF ELECTION

Neither predestination in general, nor the election of those who are to
be saved, is based on God’s foresight of any action in the creature.
This tenet of the Reformed Faith has been well stated in the
Westminster Confession, where we read: “Although God knows whatsoever
may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet hath He not
decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which
would come to pass upon such conditions.” And again, “These good works,
done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences
of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their
thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn
the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and
glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus
thereunto; that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the
end, eternal life.

“Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly
from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto,
besides the graces they already received, there is required an actual
influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of
His good pleasure; yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if
they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of
the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of
God that is in them.” [47]

Foreseen faith and good works, then, are never to be looked upon as the
cause of the Divine election. They are rather its fruits and proof.
They show that the person has been chosen and regenerated. To make them
the basis of election involves us again in a covenant of works, and
places God’s purposes in time rather than in eternity. This would not
be pre-destination but post-destination, an inversion of the Scripture
account which makes faith and holiness to be the consequents, and not
the antecedents, of election (Ephesians 1:4; John 15:16; Titus 3:5).
The statement that we were chosen in Christ “before the foundation of
the world,” excludes any consideration of merit in us; for the Hebrew
idiom, “before the foundation of the world,” means that the thing was
done in eternity. And when to Paul’s statement that it is “not of
works, but of Him that calleth,” the Arminian replies that it is of
future works, he flatly contradicts the apostle’s own words.

That the decree of election was in any way based on foreknowledge is
refuted by Paul when he says that its purpose was “that we should be
holy,” Ephesians 1:4. He insists that salvation is “not of works, that
no man should glory.” In 2 Timothy 1:9 we read that it is God “who
saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our
works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us
in Christ Jesus before times eternal.” Calvinists therefore hold that
election precedes, and is not based upon, any good works which the
person does. The very essence of the doctrine is that in redemption God
is moved by no consideration of merit or goodness in the objects of His
saving mercy. “That it is not of him that runs, nor of him that wills,
but of God who shows mercy, that the sinner obtains salvation, is the
steadfast witnesses of the whole body of Scripture, urged with such
reiteration and in such varied connections as exclude the possibility
that there may lurk behind the act of election consideration of
foreseen characters or acts or circumstances–all of which appear as
results of election.” [48]

Foreordination in general cannot rest on foreknowledge; for only that
which is certain can be foreknown, and only that which is predetermined
can be certain. The Almighty and all-sovereign Ruler of the universe
does not govern Himself on the basis of a foreknowledge of things which
might haply come to pass. Through the Scriptures the divine
foreknowledge is ever thought of as dependent on the divine purpose,
and God foreknows only because He has pre-determined. His foreknowledge
is but a transcript of His will as to what shall come to pass in the
future, and the course which the world takes under His providential
control is but the execution of His all-embracing plan. His
foreknowledge of what is yet to be, whether it be in regard to the
world as a whole or in regard to the, detailed life of every
individual, rests upon His pre-arranged plan (Jeremiah 1:5; Psalm
139:14-16; Job 23:13, 14; 28:26, 27; Amos 3:7).

There is, however, one Scripture passage which is often pointed out as
teaching that election or even fore-ordination in general is based on
foreknowledge, and we shall now give our attention to it. In Romans
8:29, 30 we read: “For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be
conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among
many brethren; and whom He foreordained, them He also called; and whom
He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also
glorified.” The word “know” is sometimes used in a sense other than
that of having merely an intellectual perception of the thing
mentioned. It occasionally means that the persons so “known” are the
special and peculiar objects of God’s favor, as when it was said of the
Jews, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth,” Amos
3:2. Paul wrote, “If any man loveth God, the same is known of Him,” 1
Corinthians 8:3. Jesus is said to “know” His sheep, John 10:14, 27; and
to the wicked He is to say, “I never knew you,” Matthew 7:23. In the
first Psalm we read, “Jehovah knoweth the way of the righteous, But the
way of the wicked shall perish.”

In all of these passages more than a mental recognition is involved,
for God has that of the wicked as well as of the righteous. It is a
knowing which has as its objects the elect only, and it is connected
with, or is rather the same as love, favor, and approbation. Those in
Romans 8:29 are foreknown in the sense that they are fore-appointed to
be the special objects of His favor. This is shown more plainly in
Romans 11:2-5, where we read, “God did not cast off His people whom He
foreknew.” A comparison is made with the time of Elijah when God “left
for Himself” seven thousand who did not bow the knee to Baal. And then
in the fifth verse he adds, “Even so then at this present time also
there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Those who were
foreknown in verse two and those who are of the election of grace are
the same people; hence they were foreknown in the sense that they were
fore-appointed to be the objects of His gracious purposes. Notice
especially that Romans 8:29 does not say that they were foreknown as
doers of good works, but that they were foreknown as individuals to
whom God would extend the grace of election. And let it be noticed
further that if Paul had here used the term “foreknow” in the sense
that election was based on mere foreknowledge, it would have
contradicted his statement elsewhere that it is according to the good
pleasure of God.

The Arminian view takes election out of the hands of God and puts it
into the hands of man. This makes the purposes of Almighty God to be
conditioned by the precarious wills of apostate men and makes temporal
events to be the cause of His eternal acts. It means further that He
has created a set of sovereign beings upon whom to a certain extent His
will and actions are dependent. It represents God as a good old father
who endeavors to get his children to do right, but who is usually
defeated because of their perverse wills; nay, it represents Him as
having evolved a plan which through the ages has been so generally
defeated that it has sent innumerably more persons to hell than to
heaven. A doctrine which leads to such absurdities is not only
un-Scriptural but unreasonable and dishonoring to God. In contrast to
all this, Calvinism offers us a great God who is infinite in His
perfections, who dispenses mercy and justice as He sees best, and who
actually rules in the affairs of men.

The Scriptures and Christian experience teach us that the very faith
and repentance through which we are saved are themselves the gifts of
God. “By grace have ye been saved through faith, and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God,” Ephesians 2:8. The Christians in
Achaia had “believed through grace,” Acts 18:27. A man is not saved
because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is
saved. Even the beginning of faith, the disposition to seek salvation,
is itself a work of grace and the gift of God. Paul often says that we
are saved “through” faith (that is, as the instrumental cause), but
never once does he say that we are saved “on account of” faith (that
is, as the meritorious cause). And to the same effect we may say that
the redeemed shall be rewarded in proportion to their good works, but
not on account of them. And in accordance with this, Augustine says
that “The elect of God are chosen by Him to be His children, in order
that they might be made to believe, not because He foresaw that they
would believe.”

Repentance is equally declared to be a gift. “Then to the Gentiles also
hath God granted repentance unto life,” Acts 11:18. “Him did God exalt
with His right hand to be a Prince and Savior, to give repentance to
Israel and remission of sins,” Acts 5:31. Paul rebuked those who did
not realize that it was the goodness of God which led them to
repentance, Romans 2:4. Jeremiah cried, “Turn thou me and I shall be
turned; for thou art Jehovah my God. Surely after that I was turned, I
repented; and after that I was instructed,” Jeremiah 31:18, 19. What,
for instance, had the infant John the Baptist to do with his being
“filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb?” Luke 1:15.
Jesus told His disciples that to them it was given to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but that to others it was not given
(Matthew 13:11). To base election on foreseen faith is to say that we
are ordained to eternal life because we believe, whereas the Scriptures
declare the contrary: “As many as were ordained to eternal life
believed,” Acts 13:48.

Our salvation is “not by works done in righteousness which we did
ourselves. but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing
of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit,” Titus 3:5. We are
encouraged to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, for
it is God who worketh in us, both to will and to do of His good
pleasure. And just because God is working in us, we strive to develop
and to work out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12, 13). The Psalmist
tells us that the Lord’s people offer themselves willingly in the day
of His power (110:3). Hence conversion is a peculiar and sovereign gift
of God. The sinner has no power to turn himself unto God, but is turned
or renewed by divine grace before he can do anything spiritually good.
In accordance with this Paul teaches that love, joy, peace, goodness,
faithfulness. self-control, etc., are not the meritorious basis of
salvation, but rather “the fruits of the Spirit,” Galatians 5:22, 23.
Paul himself was chosen that he might know and do the will of God, not
because it was foreseen that he would do it, Acts 22:14, 15. Augustine
tells us that, “The grace of God does not find men fit to be elected,
but makes them so”; and again, “The nature of the Divine goodness is
not only to open to those that knock, but also to cause them to knock
and ask.” Luther expressed the same truth when he said, “God alone by
His Spirit works in us the merit and reward.” John tells us that, “We
love because He first loved us,” 1 John 4:19. These passages
unmistakably teach that faith and good works are the fruits of God’s
work in us. We were not chosen because we were good, but in order that
we might become good.

But while good works are not the ground of salvation, they are
absolutely essential to it as its fruits and evidences. They are
produced by faith as naturally as grapes are produced by the grape
vine. And while they do not make us righteous before God, yet they are
so united with faith that true faith cannot be found without them. Nor
can good works, in the strict sense, be found anywhere without faith.
Our salvation is not “of works,” but “for good works,” Ephesians 2:9,
10; and the genuinely saved Christian will feel himself in his natural
element only when producing good works, James points out that a man’s
faith is spurious if it does not issue in good works. This is the same
principle which Jesus set forth when He declared that the character of
a tree is shown by its fruits, and that a good tree could not bear evil
fruits. Good works are as natural for the Christian as is breathing; he
does not breathe to get life; he breathes because he has life, and for
that reason cannot help breathing. Good works are his glory; hence
Jesus says, “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your
good works and glorify (not you, but) your Father who is in heaven,” to
whom the credit is really due.

The Calvinistic view is the only logical one if we accept the
Scriptural declaration that salvation is by grace. Any other involves
us in a hopeless chaos of views which are contradictory to the
Scriptures. There are, of course, mysteries connected with this view;
and it is certainly not the view which the natural man would have hit
upon if he had been called upon to suggest a plan. But to throw
overboard the Scripture doctrine of Predestination simply because it
does not fit in with our prejudices and preconceived notions is to act
foolishly. To do this is to arraign the Creator at the bar of human
reason, to deny the wisdom and righteousness of His dealings just
because we cannot fathom them, and then to declare His revelation to be
false and deceptive.

“It is a dangerous presumption for men to take upon themselves, with
unwashed hands, to unriddle the deep mysteries of God with their carnal
reason, where the great apostle stands at the gaze, crying, ‘O the
depth, how unsearchable’ and, ‘Who knoweth the mind of the Lord!’ Had
Paul been of the Arminian persuasion he would have answered, ‘Those are
elected that are foreseen to believe and persevere!’” [49] There would
have been no mystery at all if salvation had been based on their good
works.

Here we have a system in which all boasting is excluded, and in which
salvation in all of its parts is seen to be the product of unalloyed
grace, not founded on, but issuing in, good works.
__________________________________________________________________

[47] Ch. III:2: XVI:2, 3.

[48] Warfield, Biblical Doctrins, art. Predestination, p. 63.

[49] Ness, Antidote Against Arminianism, p. 31.
__________________________________________________________________

5. REPROBATION

Statement–Comments by Calvin, Luther, and Warfield–Proof from
Scripture–Based on the Doctrine of Original Sin–No Injustice is Done to
the Non-Elect–State of the Heathens–Purposes of the Decree of
Reprobation–Arminians Center Attack on this Doctrine–Under no Obligation
to Explain all These Things.

The doctrine of absolute Predestination of course logically holds that
some are foreordained to death as truly as others are foreordained to
life. The very terms “elect” and “election” imply the terms “non-elect”
and “reprobation.” When some are chosen out others are left not chosen.
The high privileges and glorious destiny of the former are not shared
with the latter. This, too, is of God. We believe that from all
eternity God has intended to leave some of Adam’s posterity in their
sins, and that the decisive factor in the life of each is to be found
only in God’s will. As Mozley has said, the whole race after the fall
was “one mass of perdition,” and “it pleased God of His sovereign mercy
to rescue some and to leave others where they were; to raise some to
glory, giving them such grace as necessarily qualified them for it, and
abandon the rest, from whom He withheld such grace, to eternal
punishments.” [50]

The chief difficulty with the doctrine of Election of course arises in
regard to the unsaved; and the Scriptures have given us no extended
explanation of their state. Since the mission of Jesus in the world was
to save the world rather than to judge it, this side of the matter is
less dwelt upon.

In all of the Reformed creeds in which the doctrine of Reprobation is
dealt with at all it is treated as an essential part of the doctrine of
Predestination. The Westminster Confession, after stating the doctrine
of election, adds: “The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to
the inscrutable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or
withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power
over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and
wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.” [51]

Those who hold the doctrine of Election but deny that of Reprobation
can lay but little claim to consistency. To affirm the former while
denying the latter makes the decree of predestination an illogical and
lop-sided decree. The creed which states the former but denies the
latter will resemble a wounded eagle attempting to fly with but one
wing. In the interests of a “mild Calvinism” some have been inclined to
give up the doctrine of Reprobation, and this term (in itself a very
innocent term) has been the entering wedge for harmful attacks upon
Calvinism pure and simple. “Mild Calvinism” is synonymous with sickly
Calvinism, and sickness, if not cured, is the beginning of the end.

Comments by Calvin, Luther, and Warfield

Calvin did not hesitate to base the reprobation of the lost, as well as
the election of the saved, on the eternal purpose of God. We have
already quoted him to the effect that “not all men are 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.” And again he says, “There can be no election without its
opposite, reprobation.” [52] That the latter raises problems which are
not easy to solve, he readily admits, but advocates it as the only
intelligent and Scriptural explanation of the facts.

Luther also as certainly as Calvin attributes the eternal perdition of
the wicked, as well as the eternal salvation of the righteous, to the
plan of God. “This mightily offends our rational nature,” he says,
“that God should, of His own mere unbiased will, leave some men to
themselves, harden them and condemn them; but He gives abundant
demonstration, and does continually, that this is really the case;
namely, that the sole cause why some are saved, and others perish,
proceeds from His willing the salvation of the former, and the
perdition of the latter, according to that of St. Paul, ‘He hath mercy
on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.”‘ And again,
“It may seem absurd to human wisdom that God should harden, blind, and
deliver up some men to a reprobate sense; that He should first deliver
them over to evil, and condemn them for that evil; but the believing,
spiritual man sees no absurdity at all in this; knowing that God would
be never a whit less good, even though He should destroy all men.” He
then goes on to say that this must not be understood to mean that God
finds men good, wise, obedient, and makes them evil, foolish, and
obdurate, but that they are already depraved and fallen and that those
who are not regenerated, instead of becoming better under the divine
commands and influences, only react to become worse. In reference to
Romans IX, X, XI, Luther says that “all things whatever arise from and
depend upon the Divine appointment, 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 condemned.” [53]

“The Biblical writers,” says Dr. Warfield, “are as far as possible from
obscuring the doctrine of election because of any seemingly unpleasant
corollaries that flow from it. On the contrary, they expressly draw the
corollaries which have often been so designated, and make them a part
of their explicit teaching. Their doctrine of election, they are free
to tell us, for example, does certainly involve a corresponding
doctrine of preterition. The very term adopted in the New Testament to
express it–eklegomai, which, as Meyer justly says (Ephesians 1:4),
‘always has, and must of logical necessity have, a reference to others
to whom the chosen would, without the ekloga, still belong’–embodies a
declaration of the fact that in their election others are passed by and
left without the gift of salvation; the whole presentation of the
doctrine is such as either to imply or openly to assert, on its very
emergence, the removal of the elect by the pure grace of God, not
merely from a state of condemnation, but out of the company of the
condemned–a company on whom the grace of God has no saving effect, and
who are therefore left without hope in their sins; and the positive
just reprobation of the impenitent for their sins is repeatedly
explicitly taught in sharp contrast with the gratuitous salvation of
the elect despite their sins.” [54]

And again he says: “The difficulty which is felt by some in following
the apostle’s argument here (Romans 11 f), we may suspect, has its
roots in part in a shrinking from what appears to them an arbitrary
assignment of men to diverse destinies without consideration of their
desert. Certainly St. Paul as explicitly affirms the sovereignty of
reprobation as election,–if these twin ideas are, indeed, separable
even in thought; if he represents God as sovereignly loving Jacob, he
represents Him equally as sovereignly hating Esau; if he declares that
He has mercy on whom He will, He equally declares that He hardens whom
He will. Doubtless the difficulty often felt here is, in part, an
outgrowth of an insufficient realization of St. Paul’s basal conception
of the state of men at large as condemned sinners before an angry God.
It is with a world of lost sinners that he represents God as dealing;
and out of that world building up a Kingdom of Grace. Were not all men
sinners, there might still be an election, as sovereign as now; and
there being an election, there would still be as sovereign a rejection;
but the rejection would not be a rejection to punishment, to
destruction, to eternal death, but to some other destiny consonant to
the state in which those passed by should be left. It is not indeed,
then, because men are sinners that men are left unelected; election is
free, and its obverse of rejection must be equally free; but it is
solely because men are sinners that what they are left to is
destruction. And it is in this universalism of ruin rather than in a
universalism of salvation that St. Paul really roots his theodicy. When
all deserve death it is a marvel of pure grace that any receive life;
and who shall gainsay the right of Him who shows this miraculous mercy,
to have mercy on whom He will, and whom He will to harden?” [55]

Proof from Scripture

This is admittedly an unpleasant doctrine. It is not taught to gain
favor with men, but only because it is the plain teaching of the
Scriptures and the logical counterpart of the doctrine of Election. We
shall find that some Scripture passages do teach the doctrine with
unmistakable clearness. These should be sufficient for any one who
accepts the Bible as the word of God. “Jehovah hath made everything for
its own end; Yea, even the wicked for the day of evil,” Proverbs 16:4.
Christ is said to be to the wicked, “A stone of stumbling, and a rock
of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto
also they were appointed,” 1 Peter 2:8. “For there are certain men
crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand to
this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into
lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ,”
Jude 4. “But these, as creatures without reason, born mere animals to
be taken and destroyed, railing in matters whereof they are ignorant,
shall in their destroying surely be destroyed,” 2 Peter 2:12. “For God
did put in their heart to do His mind, and to come to one mind, and to
give their kingdom unto the beast, until the word of God should be
accomplished,” Revelation 17:17. Concerning the beast of St. John’s
vision it is said, “All that dwell on the earth shall worship him,
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,” Revelation
13:8. and we may contrast these with the disciples whom Jesus told to
rejoice because their names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20), and
with Paul’s fellow workers. “whose names are in the book of life,”
Philippians 4:3.

Paul declares that the “vessels of wrath” which by the Lord were
“fitted unto destruction,” were “endured with much long suffering” in
order that He might “show His wrath, and make His power known”; and
with these are contrasted the “vessels of mercy, which He afore
prepared unto glory” in order “that He might make known the riches of
His glory” upon them (Romans 9:22, 23). Concerning the heathen it is
said that “God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things
which are not fitting,” Romans 1:28; and the wicked, “after his
hardness and impenitent heart treasures up for himself wrath in the day
of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,” Romans 2:5.

In regard to those who perish Paul says, “God sendeth them a working of
error, that they should believe a lie,” 2 Thessalonians 2:11. They are
called upon to behold these things in an external way, to wonder at
them, and to go on perishing in their sins. Hear the words of Paul in
the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia: “Behold, ye despisers, and wonder,
and perish; For I work a work in your days, A work which ye shall in no
wise believe, if one declare it unto you,” Acts 13:41.

The apostle John, after narrating that the people still disbelieved
although Jesus had done so many signs before them, adds, “For this
cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He hath
blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they should see
with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I
should heal them,” John 12:39, 40.

Christ’s command to the wicked in the final judgment, “Depart from me,
ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the Devil and
his angels,” Matthew 25:41, is the strongest possible decree of
reprobation; and it is the same in principle whether issued in time or
eternity. What is right for God to do in time it is not wrong for Him
to include in His eternal plan.

On one occasion Jesus Himself declared: “For judgment came I into this
world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may
become blind,” John 9:39. On another occasion He said, “I thank thee, O
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things
from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes,”
Matthew 11:25. It Is hard for us to realize that the adorable Redeemer
and only Savior of men is, to some, a stone of stumbling and a rock of
offence; yet that is what the Scriptures declare Him to be. Even before
His birth it was said that He was set (that is, appointed) for the
falling, as well as for the rising, of many in Israel (Luke 2:34). And
when, in His intercessory prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, He said,
“I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou
hast given me,” the non-elect were repudiated in so many words.

Jesus Himself declared that one of the reasons why He spoke in parables
was that the truth might be concealed from those for whom it was not
intended. We shall let the sacred history speak for itself: “And the
disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest thou unto them in
parables? And He answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to
know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them it is not
given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have
abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even
that which he hath. Therefore speak I unto them in parables; because
seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they
understand. And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which
saith,

“By hearing ye shall hear, and shall In no wise understand;

And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive;

For this people’s heart is waxed gross.

And their ears are dull of hearing.

And their eyes they have closed;

Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes,

And hear with their ears,

And understand with their heart,

And, should turn again,

And I should heal them.”

Matthew 13:10-15; Isaiah 6:9, 10.

In these words we have an application of Jesus’ words, “Give not that
which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine,”
Matthew 7:6. He who affirms that Christ designed to give His saving
truth to every one flatly contradicts Christ Himself. To the non-elect,
the Bible is a sealed book; and only to the true Christian is it
“given” to see and understand these things. So important is this truth
that the Holy Spirit has been pleased to repeat six times over in the
New Testament this passage from Isaiah (Matthew 13:14, 15; Mark 4:12;
Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:27; Romans 11:9, 10). Paul tells us that
through grace the “election” received salvation, and that the rest were
hardened; then he adds, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that
they should not see, and ears that they should not hear.” And further,
he quotes the words of David to the same effect:

“Let their table be made a snare and a trap,

And a stumbling-block, and a recompense unto them;

Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see,

And bow down their backs always,” Romans 11:8-10.

Hence as regards some, the evangelical proclamations were designed to
harden, and not to heal.

This same doctrine finds expression in numerous other parts of
Scripture. Moses said to the children of Israel, “But Sihon king of
Heshbon would not let you pass by him; for Jehovah thy God hardened his
spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into
thy hand, as at this day,” Deuteronomy 2:30. In regard to the
Canaanitish tribes who came against Joshua it is written, “For it was
of Jehovah to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle,
that He might utterly destroy them, as Jehovah commanded Moses.” Joshua
11:20. Hophni and Phinebas, the sons of Eli, when reproved for their
wickedness, “hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because
Jehovah was minded to slay them,” 1 Samuel 2:25. Though Pharaoh acted
very arrogantly and wickedly toward the Israelites, Paul assigns no
other reason than that he was one of the reprobate whose evil actions
were to be overruled for good: “For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh,
For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my
power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth,”
Romans 9:17 (see also Exodus 9:16). In all the reprobate there is a
blindness and an obstinate hardness of heart; and when any, like
Pharaoh, are said to have been hardened of God we may be sure that they
were already in themselves worthy of being delivered over to Satan. The
hearts of the wicked are, of course, never hardened by the direct
influence of God,–He simply permits some men to follow out the evil
impulses which are already in their hearts, so that, as a result of
their own choices, they become more and more calloused and obstinate.
And while it is said, for instance, that God hardened the heart of
Pharaoh, it is also said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus
8:15; 8:32; 9:34). One description is given from the divine view-point,
the other is given from the human view-point. God is ultimately
responsible for the hardening of the heart in that He permits it to
occur, and the inspired writer in graphic language simply says that God
does it; but never are we to understand that God is the immediate and
efficient cause.

Although this doctrine is harsh, it is, nevertheless, Scriptural. And
since it is so plainly taught in Scripture, we can assign no reason for
the opposition which it has met other than the pure ignorance and
unreasoned prejudice with which men’s minds have been filled when they
come to study it. How applicable here are the words of Rice:–”Happily
would it be for the Church of Christ and for the world, if Christian
ministers and Christian people could be contented to be
disciples,–LEARNERS; if, conscious of their limited faculties, their
ignorance of divine things, and their proneness to err through
depravity and prejudice, they could be induced to sit at the feet of
Jesus and learn of Him. The Church has been corrupted and cursed in
almost every age by the undue confidence of men in their reasoning
powers. They have undertaken to pronounce upon the reasonableness or
unreasonableness of doctrines infinitely above their reason, which are
necessarily matters of pure revelation. In their presumption they have
sought to comprehend ‘the deep things of God,’ and have interpreted the
Scriptures, not according to their obvious meaning, but according to
the decisions of the finite reason.” And again he says, “No one ever
studied the works of Nature or the Book of Revelation without finding
himself encompassed on every side by difficulties he could not solve.
The philosopher is obliged to be satisfied with facts; and the
theologian must content himself with God’s declarations.” [56]

Strange to say, many of those who insist that when people come to study
the doctrine of the Trinity they should put aside all preconceived
notions and should not rely simply upon the unaided human reason to
decide what can or cannot be true of God, and who insist that the
Scriptures should be accepted here as the unquestioned and
authoritative guide, are not willing to follow those rules in the study
of the doctrine of Predestination.

The Doctrine of Reprobation is Based on the Doctrine of Original Sin; No
Injustice is Done to the Non-elect

It Is obvious that this part of the doctrine of Predestination which
affirms that God has, by a sovereign and eternal decree, chosen one
portion of mankind to salvation while leaving the other portion to
destruction, strikes us at first as being opposed to our common ideas
of justice and hence needs a defence. The defence of the doctrine of
Reprobation rests upon the preceding doctrine of Original Sin or Total
Inability. This decree finds the whole race fallen. None have any claim
on God’s grace. But instead of leaving all to their just punishment,
God gratuitously confers undeserved happiness upon one portion of
mankind,–an act of pure mercy and grace to which no one can
object,–while the other portion is simply passed by. No undeserved
misery is inflicted upon this latter group. Hence no one has any right
to object to this part of the decree. If the decree dealt simply with
innocent men, it would be unjust to assign one portion to condemnation;
but since it deals with men in a particular state, which is a state of
guilt and sin, it is not unjust. “The conception of the world as lying
in the evil one and therefore judged already (John 8:18), so that upon
those who are not removed from the evil of the world the wrath of God
is not so much to be poured out but simply abides (John 3:36, cf. 1
John 3:14), is fundamental to this whole presentation. It is therefore,
on the one hand, that Jesus represents Himself as having come not to
condemn the world, but to save the world (John 8:17; 8:12; 9:5; 12:47;
cf. 4:42), and all that He does as having for its end the introduction
of life into the world (John 6:33, 51) ; the already condemned world
needs no further condemnation, it needs saving.” [57]

Guilty man has lost his rights and falls under the will of God. God’s
absolute sovereignty now comes in and when He shows mercy in some cases
we cannot object to His justice in others unless we would call in
question His government of the universe. Viewed in this light the
decree of Predestination finds mankind one mass of perdition and allows
only a portion of it to remain such. When all antecedently deserved
punishment it was not unjust for some to be antecedently consigned to
it; otherwise the execution of a just sentence would be unjust.

“When the Arminian says that faith and works constitute the ground of
election we dissent,” says Clark. “But if he says that foreseen
unbelief and disobedience constitute the ground of reprobation we
assent readily enough. A man is not saved on the ground of his virtues
but he is condemned on the ground of his sin. As strict Calvinists we
insist that while some men are saved from their unbelief and
disobedience, in which all are involved, and others are not, it is
still the sinner’s sinfulness that constitutes the ground of his
reprobation. Election and reprobation proceed on different grounds; one
the grace of God, the other the sin of man. It is a travesty on
Calvinism to say that because God elects to save a man irrespective of
his character or deserts, that therefore He elects to damn a man
irrespective of his character or deserts.” [58]

This reprobation or passing by of the non-elect is not founded merely
upon a foresight of their continuance in sin; for if that had been a
proper cause, reprobation would have been the fate of all men, for all
were foreseen as sinners. Nor can it be said that those who were passed
by were in all cases worse sinners than those who were brought to
eternal life. The Scriptures always ascribe faith and repentance to the
good pleasure of God and to the special gracious operation of His
Spirit. Those who conceive of mankind as innocent and deserving of
salvation are naturally scandalized when any portion of the race is
antecendently consigned to punishment. But when the doctrine of
Original Sin, which is taught so clearly and repeatedly in the
Scriptures, is seen in its proper setting, the objections to
predestination disappear and the condemnation of the wicked seems only
just and natural. Thus salvation is of the Lord alone, and damnation
wholly from ourselves. Men perish because they will not come to Christ;
yet if they have a will to come, it is God who works the will in them.
Grace, electing grace, both draws the will and keeps it steady; and to
grace be all the praise.

Furthermore, out of a world of sinful and rebellious subjects, none of
whom were in themselves worthy of saving, God has graciously chosen
some when he might have passed by all as He did the fallen angels (2
Peter 2:4; Jude 6). He has taken it altogether upon Himself to provide
the redemption through which His people are saved. The atonement,
therefore, is His own property; and He certainly may, as He most
assuredly will, do what He pleases with His own. Grace is given to one
and withheld from another as He sees best. It is to be noticed also
that the withholding of His grace from the non-elect is but the
negative cause of their perishing, just as the absence of a physician
from the sick man is the occasion, not the efficient cause, of his
death. “In the sight of an infinitely good and merciful God,” says Dr.
Charles Hodge, “it was necessary that some of the rebellious race of
man should suffer the penalty of the law which all have broken. It is
God’s prerogative to determine who shall be vessels of mercy, and who
shall be left to the just recompense of their sins.” [59]

Since man has brought himself into this state of sin, his condemnation
is just, and every demand of justice would be met in his punishment.
Conscience tells us that man perishes justly, since he chooses to
follow Satan rather than God. “Ye will not come to me, that ye may have
life,” said Jesus (John 5:40). And in this connection the words of
Prof. F. E. Hamilton are very appropriate: “All God does is to let him
(the unregenerate) alone and allow him to go his own way without
interference. It is his nature to be evil, and God simply has
foreordained to leave that nature unchanged. The picture often painted
by opponents of Calvinism, of a cruel God refusing to save those who
long to be saved, is a gross caricature. God saves all who want to be
saved, but no one whose nature is unchanged wants to be saved.” Those
who are lost are lost because they deliberately choose to walk in the
ways of sin; and this will be the very hell of hells, that men have
been self destroyers.

Many people talk as if salvation were a matter of human birthright.
And, forgetful of the fact that man had and lost his supremely
favorable chance in Adam, they inform us that God would be unjust if He
did not give all guilty creatures an opportunity to be saved. In regard
to the idea that salvation is given in return for something done by the
person, Luther says, “But let us, I pray you, suppose that God ought to
be such a one, who should have respect unto merit in those who are
damned. Must we not, in like manner, also require and grant that He
ought to have respect unto merit in those who are to be saved? For if
we are to follow reason, it is equally unjust, that the undeserving
should be crowned, as that the deserving should be damned.” [60]

No one with proper ideas of God supposes that He suddenly does
something which He had not thought of before. Since His is an eternal
purpose, what He does in time is what He purposed from eternity to do.
Those whom He saves are those whom He purposed from eternity to save,
and those whom He leaves to perish are those whom He purposed from
eternity to leave. If it is just for God to do a certain thing in time,
it is, by parity of argument, just for Him to resolve upon and decree
it from eternity, for the principle of the action is the same in either
case. And if we are justified in saying that from all eternity God has
intended to display His mercy in pardoning a vast multitude of sinners
why do some people object so strenuously when we say that from all
eternity God has intended to display His justice in punishing other
sinners?

Hence if it is just for God to forbear saving some persons after they
are born, it was just for Him to form that purpose before they were
born, or in eternity. And since the determining will of God is
omnipotent, it cannot be obstructed or made void. This being true, it
follows that He never did, nor does He now, will that every individual
of mankind should be saved. If He willed this, not one single soul
could ever be lost, “for who hath resisted His will?” If He willed that
none should be lost, He would surely give to all men those effectual
means of salvation without which it cannot be had. Now, God could give
those means as easily to all mankind as to some only, but experience
proves that He does not. Hence it logically follows that it is not His
secret purpose or decretive will that all should be saved. In fact, the
two truths, that what God does He does from eternity, and that only a
portion of the human race is saved, is enough to complete the doctrines
of Election and Reprobation.

State of the Heathens

The fact that, in the providential working of God, some men are left
without the Gospel and the other means of grace virtually involves the
principle set forth in the Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination. We
see that in all ages the greater portion of mankind has been left
destitute even of the external means of grace. For centuries the Jews,
who were very few in number, were the only people to whom God was
pleased to make any special revelation of Himself. Jesus confined His
public ministry almost exclusively to them and forbade his disciples to
go among others until after the day of Pentecost (Matthew 10:5, 6;
28:19; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:4). Multitudes were left with no chance to
hear the Gospel, and consequently died in their sins. If God had
intended to save them undoubtedly he would have sent them the means of
salvation. If he had chosen to Christianize India and China a thousand
years ago, He most certainly could have accomplished His purpose.
Instead, they were left in gross darkness and unbelief. The past and
present state of the world with all its sin, misery, and death, can
have no other explanation than that given in Scripture,–namely, that
the race fell in Adam and that in mercy God has sovereignly chosen to
bring an innumerable multitude to salvation through a redemption which
He has Himself provided. It is a perverted and dishonoring view of God
to imagine Him struggling along with disobedient men, doing the best He
can to convert them, but not able to accomplish His purpose.

If the Arminian theory were true, namely, that Christ died for all men
and that the benefits of His death are actually applied to all men we
would expect to find that God had made some provision for the Gospel to
be communicated to all men. The problem of the heathens, who live and
die without the Gospel, has always been a thorny one for the Arminians
who insist that all men have sufficient grace if they will but make use
of it. Few will deny that salvation is conditioned on the person
hearing and accepting the Gospel. The Christian Church has been
practically of one mind in declaring that the heathens as a class are
lost. That such is the clear teaching of the Bible we can easily
show:–

“And in none other is there salvation; for neither is there any other
name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved,”
Acts 4:12. “As many as have sinned without the law shall also perish
without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be
judged by the law,” Romans 2:12. “Other foundation can no man lay than
that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” 1 Corinthians 3:11. “I am
the vine, ye are the branches; apart from me ye can do nothing,” John
15:5. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto
the Father, but by me,” John 14:6. “He that believeth on the Son hath
eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but
the wrath of God abideth on him,” John 3:36. “He that hath the Son hath
life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life,” 1 John 5:12,
“And this is eternal life, that they should know thee the only true
God, and Him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ,” John 17:3.
“Without faith it is Impossible to be well-pleasing to God,” Hebrews
11: 6. “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and how
shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? and how shall they
hear without a preacher?” Romans 10:13, 14 (or, in other words, how can
the heathens possibly be saved when they have never even heard of
Christ who is the only means of salvation ?). “Jesus therefore said
unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves,”
John 6:53. When the watchman sees danger coming but does not give the
people warning they perish in their iniquity, Ezekiel 33:8,–true, the
watchman will be held responsible, yet that does not change the fate of
the people. Jesus declared that even the Samaritans who had far higher
privileges than the nations outside of Palestine, worshipped they knew
not what, and that salvation was of the Jews. See also the first and
second chapters of Romans. The Scriptures, then, are plain in declaring
that under ordinary conditions those who have not Christ and the Gospel
are lost.

And in accordance with this the Westminster Confession, after stating
that those who reject Christ cannot be saved, adds: “Much less can men,
not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way
whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to
the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess . .
.” (X:4).

In fact the belief that the heathens without the Gospel are lost has
been one of the strongest arguments in favor of foreign missions. If we
believe that their own religions contain enough light and truth to save
them, the importance of preaching the Gospel to them is greatly
lessened. Our attitude toward foreign missions is determined pretty
largely by the answer which we give to this question.

We do not deny that God can save some even of the adult heathen people
if He chooses to do so, for His Spirit works when and where and how He
pleases, with means or without means. If any such are saved, however,
it is by a miracle of pure grace. Certainly God’s ordinary method is to
gather His elect from the evangelized portion of mankind, although we
must admit the possibility that by an extraordinary method some few of
His elect may be gathered from the unevangelized portion. (The fate of
those who die in infancy in heathen lands will be discussed under the
subject, “Infant Salvation.”)

It is unreasonable to suppose that people can appropriate to themselves
something concerning which they know nothing. We readily see that so
far as the pleasures and joys and opportunities in this world are
concerned the heathens are largely passed by; and on the same principle
we would expect them to be passed by in the next world also. Those who
are providentially placed in the pagan darkness of western China can no
more accept Christ as Savior than they can accept the radio, the
airplane, or the Copernican system of astronomy, things concerning
which they are totally ignorant. When God places people in such
conditions we may be sure that He has no more intention that they shall
be saved than He has that the soil of northern Siberia, which is frozen
all the year round, shall produce crops of wheat. Had he intended
otherwise He would have supplied the means leading to the designed end.
There are also multitudes in the nominally Christian lands to whom the
Gospel has never been presented in any adequate way, who have not even
the outward means of salvation, to say nothing of the helpless state of
their heart.

This, of course, does not mean that all of the lost shall suffer the
same degree of punishment. We believe that from a common zero point
there will be all degrees of reward and all degrees of punishment, and
that a person’s reward or punishment will, to a certain extent, be
based on the opportunity that he has had in this world. Jesus Himself
declared that in the day of judgment it would be more tolerable for the
heathen city of Sodom than for those cities of Palestine which had
heard and rejected His message (Luke 10:12-14); and He closed the
parable of the faithful and unfaithful servants with the words: “And
that servant, who knew his lord’s will, and made not ready, nor did
according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that
knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few
stripes. And to whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be
required; and to whom they commit much, of him will they ask the more,”
Luke 12:47, 48. So while the heathens are lost, they shall suffer
relatively less than those who have heard and rejected the Gospel.

Hence in regard to this problem of the heathen races, Arminians are, at
the very outset, involved in difficulties which subvert their whole
scheme, difficulties from which they have never been able to extricate
themselves. They admit that only in Christ is there salvation; yet they
see that multitudes die without ever having heard of Christ or the
Gospel. Holding that sufficient grace or opportunity must be given to
every man before he can be condemned, many of them have been led to
postulate a future probation,–this however is not only without
Scripture support, but is contrary to Scripture. As Cunningham says,
“Calvinists have always regarded it as a strong argument against the
Arminian doctrines of universal grace and universal redemption, and in
favor of their own views of the sovereign purposes of God, that, in
point of fact, so large a portion of the human race have been always
left in entire ignorance of God’s mercy, and of the way of salvation
revealed in the Gospel; nay, in such circumstances as, to all
appearances, throw insuperable obstacles in the way of their attaining
to that knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, which is eternal life.”
[61]

Only in Calvinism, with its doctrine of the guilt and corruption of all
mankind through the fall, and its doctrine of grace through which some
are sovereignly rescued and brought to salvation while others are
passed by, do we find an adequate explanation of the phenomenon of the
heathen world.

Purposes of the Decree of Reprobation

The condemnation of the non-elect is designed primarily to furnish an
eternal exhibition, before men and angels, of God’s hatred for sin, or,
in other words, it is to be an eternal manifestation of the justice of
God. (Let it be remembered that God’s justice as certainly demands the
punishment of sin as it demands the rewarding of righteousness.) This
decree displays one of the divine attributes which apart from it could
never have been adequately appreciated. The salvation of some through a
redeemer is designed to display the attributes of love, mercy, and
holiness. The attributes of wisdom, power and sovereignty are displayed
in the treatment accorded both groups. Hence the truth of the Scripture
statement that, “Jehovah hath made everything for its own end; Yea,
even the wicked for the day of evil,” Proverbs 16:4; and also the
statement of Paul that this arrangement was intended on the one hand,
to “make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He
afore prepared unto glory,” and on the other, “to show His wrath, and
to make His power known” upon “vessels of wrath fitted unto
destruction,” Romans 9:22, 23.

This decree of reprobation also serves subordinate purposes in regard
to the elect; for, in beholding the rejection and final state of the
wicked, (1) they learn what they too would have suffered had not grace
stepped in to their relief, and they appreciate more deeply the riches
of divine love which raised them from sin and brought them into eternal
life while others no more guilty or unworthy than they were left to
eternal destruction. (2) It furnishes a most powerful motive for
thankfulness that they have received such high blessings. (3) They are
led to a deeper trust of their heavenly Father who supplies all their
needs in this life and the next. (4) The sense of what they have
received furnishes the strongest possible motive for them to love their
heavenly Father, and to live as pure lives as possible. (5) It leads
them to a greater abhorrence of sin. (6) It leads them to a closer walk
with God and with each other as specially chosen heirs of the kingdom
of heaven. (7) In regard to the sovereign rejection of the Jews, Paul
destroys at the source any accusation that they were cast off without
reason. “Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: for by
their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles, to provoke them to
jealousy,” Romans 11:11. Thus we see that God’s rejection of the Jews
was for a very wise and definite purpose; namely, that salvation might
be given to the Gentiles, and that in such a way that it would react
for the salvation of the Jews themselves. Historically we see that the
Christian Church has been almost exclusively a Gentile Church. But in
every age some Jews have been converted to Christianity, and we believe
that as time goes on much larger numbers will be “provoked to jealousy”
and caused to turn to God. Several verses in the eleventh chapter of
Romans indicate that considerable numbers are to be converted and that
they will be extremely zealous for righteousness.

Arminians Center Attack on This Doctrine

This doctrine of Reprobation is one upon which the Arminians are very
fond of dwelling. They often single it out and emphasize it as though
it was the sum and substance of Calvinism, while the other doctrines
such as the Sovereignty of God, the purely gracious character of
Election, the Perseverance of the saints, etc., which give so much
glory to God, are passed by with little or no comment. At the Synod of
Dort the Arminians insisted on first discussing the subject of
Reprobation, and complained of it as a great hardship when the Synod
refused to concede this. To the present day they have generally pursued
this same policy. Their object is plain, for they know that it is easy
to misrepresent this doctrine and to set it forth in a light that will
prejudice men’s feelings against it. They often distort the views which
are held by Calvinists, then after alleging all that they can against
it, they argue that since there can be no such thing as Reprobation,
neither can there be any such thing as Election. The unfair
over-emphasis on this doctrine indicates anything but an unprejudiced
and sincere search for truth. Let them turn rather to the positive side
of the system; let them answer and dispose of the large amount of
evidence which has been collected in favor of this system.

On the other hand Calvinists usually produce first the evidence in
favor of the doctrine of Election and then, having established this,
they show that what they hold concerning the doctrine of Reprobation
naturally follows. They do not, indeed, regard the latter as wholly
dependent on the former for its proof. They believe that it is
sustained by independent Scripture proof ; yet they do believe that if
what they hold concerning the doctrine of Election is proven true, then
what they hold concerning the doctrine of Reprobation will follow of
logical necessity. Since the Scriptures give us much fuller information
about what God does in producing faith and repentance in those who are
saved than they give us in regard to His procedure with those who
continue in impenitence and unbelief, reason demands that we shall
first investigate the doctrine of Election, and then consider the
doctrine of Reprobation. This last consideration shows the utter
unfairness of Arminians in giving such prominence to the doctrine of
Reprobation. As has been said before, this is admittedly an unpleasant
doctrine. Calvinists do not shrink from discussing it; yet naturally,
because of its awful character, they find no satisfaction in dwelling
upon it. They also realize that here men must be particularly careful
not to attempt to be wise above what is written, as many are inclined
to do when they indulge in presumptuous speculations about matters
which are too high for them.

Under No Obligation to Explain All These Things

Let it be remembered that we are under no obligation to explain all the
mysteries connected with these doctrines. We are only under obligation
to set forth what the Scriptures teach concerning them, and to
vindicate this teaching so far as possible from the objections which
are alleged against it. The “yea, Father, for so it was well pleasing
in thy sight,” (Matthew 11:26; Luke 10:21, was, to our Lord, an
all-sufficient theodicy in the face of all God’s diverse dealings with
men. The sufficient and only answer which Paul gives to vain reasoners
who would penetrate more deeply into these mysteries is that they are
to be resolved into the divine wisdom and sovereignty. The words of
Toplady are especially appropriate here: “Say not, therefore, as the
opposers of these doctrines did in St. Paul’s days: ‘Why doth God find
fault with the wicked? for who bath resisted His will? If He, who only
can convert them, refrains from doing it, what room is there for
blaming them that perish, seeing it is impossible to resist the will of
the Almighty?’ Be satisfied with St. Paul’s answer, ‘Nay, but, O man,
who art thou that repliest against God?’ The apostle hinges the whole
matter entirely on God’s absolute sovereignty. There he rests it, and
there we ought to leave it.” [62]

Man cannot measure the justice of God by his own comprehension, and our
modesty should be such that when the reason for some of God’s works
lies hidden we nevertheless believe Him to be just. If any one thinks
that this doctrine represents God as unjust, it is only because he does
not realize what the Scripture doctrine of Original Sin is, nor to what
it commits him. Let him fix his mind upon the existence of real
ill-desert antecedent to actual sin, and the condemnation will appear
just and natural. The first step mastered, the second presents no real
difficulty.

It is hard for us to realize that many of those right around us (in
some cases our close friends and relatives) are probably foreordained
to eternal punishment; and so far as we do realize it we are inclined
to have a certain sympathy for them. Yet when seen in the light of
eternity our sympathy for the lost will be found to have been an
undeserved and a misplaced sympathy. Those who are finally lost shall
then be seen as they really are, enemies of God, enemies of all
righteousness, and lovers of sin, with no desire for salvation or the
presence of the Lord. We may add further that, since God is perfectly
just, none shall be sent to hell except those who deserve to go there;
and when we see their real characters we shall be fully satisfied with
the disposition that God has made.

As a matter of fact the Arminians do not escape any real difficulty
here. For since they admit that God has foreknowledge of all things
they must explain why He creates those who He foresees will lead sinful
lives, reject the Gospel, die impenitent, and suffer eternally in hell.
The Arminians really have a more difficult problem here than do the
Calvinists; for the Calvinists maintain that the ones whom God thus
creates, knowing that they will be lost, are the non-elect who
voluntarily choose sin and in whose merited punishment God designs to
manifest His justice, while the Arminians must say that God
deliberately creates those who He foresees will be such poor, miserable
creatures that without serving any good purpose they will bring
destruction upon themselves and will spend eternity in hell in spite of
the fact that God Himself earnestly wishes to bring them to heaven, and
that God shall be forever grieved in seeing them where He wishes they
were not. Does not this represent God as acting most foolishly in
bringing upon Himself such dissatisfaction and upon some of His
creatures such misery when He could at least have refrained from
creating those who, He foresaw, would be lost?

Perhaps there are some who, upon hearing of this doctrine of
Predestination, will account themselves reprobate and will be inclined
to go into further sin with the excuse that they are to be damned
anyway. But to do so is to suck poison out of a sweet flower, to dash
one’s self against the Rock of Ages. No one has the right to judge
himself reprobate in this life, and hence to grow desperate; for final
disobedience (the only infallible sign of reprobation) cannot be
discovered until death. No unconverted person in this life knows for
certain that God will not yet convert him and save him, even though he
is aware that no such change has yet taken place. Hence be has no right
to number himself definitely among the non-elect. God has not told us
who among the unconverted He yet proposes to regenerate and save. If
any man feels the pangs of conscience working in him, these may be the
very means which God is using to draw him.

We have given considerable space to the discussion of the doctrine of
Reprobation because it has been the great stumbling block for most of
those who have rejected the Calvinistic system. We believe that if this
doctrine can be shown to be Scriptural and reasonable the other parts
of the system will be readily accepted.
__________________________________________________________________

[50] The Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, p. 297.

[51] Ch. III: Sec. 7

[52] Institutes, Book III, Ch. 23.

[53] In Praefat, and Epist. ad Rom., quoted by Zanchius,
Predestination, p. 92.

[54] Biblical Doctrines, art., Predestination, p. 64.

[55] Biblical Doctrines, p. 54.

[56] Rice, God Sovereign and Man Free, pp. 3, 4.

[57] Warfield, Biblical Doctrine, p. 35.

[58] A syllabus of Systematic Theology, pp. 219, 220.

[59] Systematic Theology, II, p. 652.

[60] Bondage of the Will, p. 252.

[61] Historical Theology, II, p. 397.

[62] Zanchius’, Predestination, Introduction, p. 19.
__________________________________________________________________

6. INFRALAPSARIANISM AND SUPRALAPSARIANISM

Among those who call themselves Calvinists there has been some
difference of opinion as to the order of events in the Divine plan. The
question here is, When the decrees of election and reprobation came
into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallen? Were the
objects of these decrees contemplated as members of a sinful, corrupt
mass, or were they contemplated merely as men whom God would create?
According to the infralapsarian view the order of events was as
follows: God proposed (1) to create; (2) to permit the fall; (3) to
elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out of this
mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the Devil and
the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins; (4) to
give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and (5) to
send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was
purchased by Christ. According to the supralapsarian view the order of
events was: (1) to elect some creatable men (that is, men who were to
be created) to life and to condemn others to destruction; (2) to
create; (3) to permit the fall; (4) to send Christ to redeem the elect;
and (5) to send the Holy Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect
The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the
fall.

One of the leading motives in the supralapsarian scheme is to emphasize
the idea of discrimination and to push this idea into the whole of
God’s dealings with men. We believe, however, that supralapsarianism
over-emphasizes this idea. In the very nature of the case this idea
cannot be consistently carried out, e.g., in creation, and especially
in the fall. It was not merely some of the members of the human race
who were objects of the decree to create, but all mankind, and that
with the same nature. And it was not merely some men, but the entire
race, which was permitted to fall. Supralapsarianism goes to as great
an extreme on the one side as does universalism on the other. Only the
infralapsarian scheme is self-consistent or consistent with other
facts.

In regard to this difference Dr. Warfield writes: “The mere putting of
the question seems to carry its answer with it. For the actual dealing
with men which is in question, is, with respect to both classes alike,
those who are elected and those who are passed by, conditioned on sin;
we cannot speak of salvation any more than of reprobation without
positing sin. Sin is necessarily precedent in thought, not indeed to
the abstract idea of discrimination, but to the concrete instance of
discrimination which is in question, a discrimination with regard to a
destiny which involves either salvation or punishment. There must be
sin in contemplation to ground a decree of salvation, as truly as a
decree of punishment. We cannot speak of a decree discriminating
between men with reference to salvation and punishment, therefore,
without positing the contemplation of men as sinners as its logical
prius.” [63]

And to the same effect Dr. Charles Hodge says: “It is a clearly
revealed Scriptural principle that where there is no sin there is no
condemnation …. He hath mercy upon one and not on another, according
to His own good pleasure, because all are equally unworthy and guilty.
. . Everywhere, as in Romans 1:24, 26, 28, reprobation is declared to
be judicial, founded upon the sinfulness of its object. Otherwise it
could not be a manifestation of the justice of God.” [64]

It is not in harmony with the Scripture ideas of God that innocent men,
men who are not contemplated as sinners, should be foreordained to
eternal misery and death. The decrees concerning the saved and the lost
should not be looked upon as based merely on abstract sovereignty. God
is truly sovereign, but this sovereignty is not exercised in an
arbitrary way. Rather it is a sovereignty exercised in harmony with His
other attributes, especially His justice, holiness, and wisdom. God
cannot commit sin; and in that respect He is limited, although it would
be more accurate to speak of His inability to commit sin as a
perfection. There is, of course, mystery in connection with either
system; but the supralapsarian system seems to pass beyond mystery and
into contradiction.

The Scriptures are practically infralapsarian,–Christians are said to
have been chosen “out of” the world, John 15:19; the potter has a right
over the clay, “from the same lump,” to make one part a vessel unto
honor, and another unto dishonor, Romans 9:21; and the elect and the
non-elect are regarded as being originally in a common state of misery.
Suffering and death are uniformly represented as the wages of sin. The
infralapsarian scheme naturally commends itself to our ideas of justice
and mercy; and it is at least free from the Arminian objection that God
simply creates some men in order to damn them. Augustine and the great
majority of those who have held the doctrine of Election since that
time have been and are infralapsarians,–that is, they believe that it
was from the mass of fallen men that some were elected to eternal life
while others were sentenced to eternal death for their sins. There is
no Reformed confession which teaches the supralapsaian view; but on the
other hand a considerable number do explicitly teach the infralapsarian
view, which thus emerges as the typical form of Calvinism. At the
present day it is probably safe to say that not more than one Calvinist
in a hundred holds the supralapsarian view. We are Calvinists strongly
enough, but not “high Calvinists.” By a “high Calvinist” we mean one
who holds the supralapsarian view.

It is of course true that in either system the sovereign choice of God
in election is strewed and salvation in its whole course is the work of
God. Opponents usually stress the supralapsarian system since it is the
one which without explanation is more likely to conflict with man’s
natural feelings and impressions. It is also true that there are some
things here which cannot be put into the time mould,–that these events
are not in the Divine mind as they are in ours, by a succession of
acts, one after another, but that by one single act God has at once
ordained all these things. In the Divine mind the plan is a unit, each
part of which is designed with reference to a state of facts which God
intended should result from the other parts. All of the decrees are
eternal. They have a logical, but not a chronological, relationship.
Yet in order for us to reason intelligently about them we must have a
certain order of thought. We very naturally think of the gift of Christ
in sancification and glorification as following the decrees of the
creation and the fall.

In regard to the teaching of the Westminster Confession, Dr. Charles
Hodge makes the following comment: “Twiss, the Prolocutor of that
venerable body (the Westminster Assembly), was a zealous
supralapsarian; the great majority of its members, however, were on the
other side. The symbols of that Assembly, while they clearly imply the
infralapsarian view, were yet so framed as to avoid offence to those
who adopted the supralapsarian theory. In the ‘Westminster Confession,’
it is said that God appointed the elect unto eternal life, and the rest
of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of
His own will whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth,
for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by,
and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise
of His glorious justice: It is here taught that those whom God passes
by are ‘the rest of mankind; not the rest of ideal or possible men, but
the rest of those human beings who constitute mankind, or the human
race. In the second place, the passage quoted teaches that the
non-elect are passed by and ordained to wrath ‘for their sin.’ This
implies that they were contemplated as sinful before this
foreordination to judgment. The infralapsarian view is still more
obviously assumed in the answer to the l9th and 20th questions in the
‘Shorter Catechism.’ It is there taught that all mankind by the fall
lost communion with God, and are under His wrath and curse, and that
God out of His mere good pleasure elected some (some of those under His
wrath and curse), unto everlasting life. Such has been the doctrine of
the great body of Augustinians from the time of Augustine to the
present day.” [65]
__________________________________________________________________

[63] The Plan of Salvation, p. 28.

[64] Systematic Theology, II, p. 318.

[65] Systematic Theology, II, p. 317.
__________________________________________________________________

7. MANY ARE CHOSEN

When the doctrine of Election is mentioned many people immediately
assume that this means that the great majority of mankind will be lost.
But why should any one draw that conclusion? God is free in election to
choose as many as I He pleases, and we believe that He who is
infinitely merciful and benevolent and holy will elect the great
majority to life. There is no good reason why He should be limited to
only a few. We are told that Christ is to have the preeminence in all
things, and we do not believe that the Devil will be permitted to
emerge victor even in numbers.

Our position in this respect has been very ably stated by Dr. W. G. T.
Shedd in the following words: “Let it be noticed that the question, how
many are elected and how many are reprobated, has nothing to do with
the question whether God may either elect or reprobate sinners. If it
is intrinsically right for Him either to elect or not to elect, either
to save or not to save free moral agents who by their own fault have
plunged themselves into sin and ruin, numbers are of no account in
establishing the rightness. And if it is intrinsically wrong, numbers
are of no account in establisbing wrongness. Neither is there any
necessity that the number of the elect should be small, and that of the
nonelect great; or the converse. The election and the non-election, and
also the numbers of the elect and the non-elect, are all alike a matter
of sovereignty and optional decision. At the same time it relieves the
solemnity and awfulness which overhangs the decree of reprobation, to
remember that the Scriptures teach that the number of the elect is much
greater than that of the non-elect. The kingdom of the Redeemer in this
fallen world is always described as far greater and grander than that
of Satan. The operation of grace on earth is uniformly represented as
mightier than that of sin. ‘Where sin abounded, grace did much more
abound.’ And the final number of the redeemed is said to be a ‘number
which no man can number,’ but that of the lost is not so magnified and
emphasized.” [66]

There is, however, a very common practice among Arminian writers to
represent Calvinists as tending to consign to everlasting misery a
large portion of the human race whom they would admit to the enjoyment
of heaven. It is a mere caricature of Calvinism to represent it as
based on the principle that the saved will be a mere handful, or only a
few brands plucked from the burning. When the Calvinist insists upon
the doctrine of Election, his emphasis is upon the fact that God deals
personally with each individual soul instead of dealing merely with
mankind in the mass; and this is a thing altogether apart from the
relative proportion which shall exist between the saved and the lost.
In answer to those who are inclined to say, “According to this doctrine
God alone can save the soul; there will be few saved,” we can reply
that they might as well reason, “Since God alone can create stars,
there can be but few stars.” The objection is not well taken. The
doctrine of Election taken in itself tells us nothing about what the
ultimate ratio shall be. The only limit set is that not all will be
saved.

So far as the principles of sovereignty and personal election are
concerned there is no reason why a Calvinist might not hold that all
men will finally be saved; and some Calvinists have actually held this
view. “Calvinism,” wrote W. P. Patterson, of the University of
Edinburgh, “is the only system which contains principles–in its
doctrines of election and irresistible grace–that could make credible
a theory of universal salvation.” And Dr. S. G. Craig, Editor of
CHRISTIANITY TODAY, and one of the outstanding men in the Presbyterian
Church at the present time, says: “No doubt many Calvinists, like many
not Calvinists, have, in obedience to the supposed teachings of the
Scriptures, held that few will be saved, but there is no good reason
why Calvinists may not believe that the saved will ultimately embrace
the immensely greater portion of the human race. At any rate, our
leading theologians–Charles Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, W. G. T. Shedd,
and B. B. Warfield–have so held.”

As stated by Patterson, Calvinism, with its emphasis on the intimate
personal relation between God and each individual soul, is the only
system which would offer a logical basis for universalism if that view
were not contradicted by the Scriptures. And in contrast with this,
must not the Arminian admit that on his principles only comparatively
few actually are saved? He must admit that so far in human history the
great proportion of adults, even in nominally Christian lands,
exercising their “free will” with a “graciously restored ability” have
died without accepting Christ. And unless God is bringing the world to
an appointed goal, what grounds are there to suppose that, so long as
human nature remains as it is, the situation would be materially
different even if the world lasted a billion years?
__________________________________________________________________

[66] Calvinism, Pure and Mixed, p. 84.
__________________________________________________________________

8. A REDEEMED WORLD OR RACE

Since it was the world, or the race, which fell in Adam, it was the
world, or the race, which was redeemed by Christ. This, however, does
not mean that every individual will be saved, but that the race as a
race will be saved. Jehovah is no mere tribal deity, but is “the God of
the whole earth”; and the salvation which He had in view cannot be
limited to that of a little select group or favored few. The Gospel was
not merely local news for a few villages in Palestine, but was a world
message; and the abundant and continuous testimony of Scripture is that
the kingdom of God is to fill the earth, “from sea to sea, and from the
River unto the ends of the earth.” Zechariah 9:10.

Early in the Old Testament we have the promise that “all the earth
shall be filled with the glory of Jehovah,” Numbers 14:21; and Isaiah
repeats the promise that all flesh shall see the glory of Jehovah
(40:5). Israel was set as “a light to the Gentiles,” and “for salvation
unto the uttermost part of the earth,” Isaiah 49:6; Acts 13:47. Joel
made the clear declaration that in the coming days of blessing, the
Spirit hitherto given only to Israel would be poured out upon the whole
earth. “And it shall come to pass afterward,” said the Lord through His
prophet, “that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,” 2:28; and
Peter applied that prophecy to the outpouring which was begun at
Pentecost (Acts 2:16).

Ezekiel gives us the picture of the increasing flow of the healing
waters which issue from under the threshold of the temple; waters which
were first only to the ankles, then to the knees, then to the loins,
then a great river, waters which could not be passed through (47:1-5).
Daniel’s interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream taught this same
truth. The king saw a great image, with various parts of gold, silver,
brass, iron, and clay. Then he saw a stone cut out without bands, which
stone smote the image so that the gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay
were carried away like the chaff of the summer threshing floor. These
various elements represented great world empires which were to be
broken in pieces and completely carried away, while the stone cut out
without bands represented a spiritual kingdom which God Himself would
set up and which would become a great mountain and fill the whole
earth. “And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a
kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty
thereof he left to another people, but it shall break in pieces and
consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever,” Daniel 2:44.
In the light of the New Testament we see that this kingdom was the one
which Christ set up. In the vision which Daniel saw, the beast made war
with the saints and prevailed against them for a time,–but, “the time
came when the saints possessed the kingdom,” 7:22.

Jeremiah gives the promise that the time is coming when it will no
longer be necessary for a man to say to his brother or to his neighbors
“Know Jehovah”; “for they shall all know Him, from the least to the
greatest of them,” 31:34. “Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations
for thine inheritance, And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy
possessions,” said the psalmist (2:8). The last book of the Old
Testament contains a promise that ‘from the rising of the sun unto the
going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles, saith
Jehovah of hosts,” Malachi 1:11.

In the New Testament we find the same teaching. When the Lord does
finally shower spiritual blessings on His people, “the residue of men,”
and “all the Gentiles,” are to “seek after the Lord,” Acts 15:17.
“Christ is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but
also for the whole world,” 1 John 2:2. “For God so loved the world,
that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him
should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the Son into
the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved
through Him” John 3:16, 17. “The Father hath sent the Son to be the
Savior of the world,” 1 John 4:14. “Behold the lamb of God, that taketh
away the sin of the world!” John 1:29. “We have heard for ourselves,
and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world” John 4:42. “I am
the light of the world,” John 8:12. “I came not to judge the world, but
to save the world,” John 12:47. “And I, if I be lifted up from the
earth, will draw all men unto me,” John 12:32. “God was in Christ
reconciling the world unto Himself,” 2 Corinthians 5:19. The kingdom of
heaven is said to be “like unto leaven which a woman took and hid in
three measures of meal till it was all leavened,” Matthew 13:33.

In the eleventh chapter of Romans we are told that the acceptance of
the Gospel by the Jews shall be as “life from the dead” in its
spiritual blessings to the world. By their fall the Gospel was given to
the Gentiles–”now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their
loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? …. For
if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall
the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” The universal and
complete dominion of Christ is taught again when we are told that He is
to sit at the right hand of the Father until all enemies have been
placed under His feet.

Thus a strong emphasis is thrown on the universality of Christ’s work
of redemption, and we are taught that our eyes are yet to behold a
Christianized world. And since nothing is told us as to how long the
earth shall continue after this goal is reached, possibly we may look
forward to a great “golden age” of spiritual prosperity, continuing for
centuries, or even millenniums, during which time Christianity shall be
triumphant over all the earth, and during which time the great
proportion even of adults shall be saved. It seems that the number of
the redeemed shall then be swelled until it far surpasses that of the
lost.

We cannot, of course, fix even an approximate date for the end of the
world. In several places in Scripture we are told that Christ is to
return at the end of this present world order; that His coming will be
personal, visible, and with great power and glory; that the general
resurrection and the general judgment shall then take place; and that
heaven and hell shall then be ushered in in their fulness. But it has
been expressly revealed that the time of our Lord’s coming is “among
the secret things that belong unto the Lord our God.” “For of that day
or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father only,” said Jesus before His crucifixion; and after
the resurrection He said, “It is not for you to know the times or the
seasons which the Father hath set within His own authority,” Acts 1:7.
Hence those who presume to tell us when the end of the world is coming
are simply speaking without knowledge. In view of the fact that it has
now been nearly 2,000 years since Christ came the first time, it may,
for all we know, be another 2,000 years before He comes again–perhaps
a much longer, perhaps a much shorter, time.

In this connection Dr. S. G. Craig has well said: “We are told that
certain events, such as the preaching of the Gospel among all the
nations (Matthew 24:14), the conversion of the Jews (Romans 11:25-27),
the overthrow of ‘every rulership and every authority and power’
opposed to Christ (1 Corinthians 15:24), are to take place before the
return of our Lord. It seems clear, therefore, that while the time of
our Lord’s return is unknown, yet it still lies some distance in the
future. Just how far in the future we have no means of knowing. No
doubt, if events move as slowly in the future as in the past, the
coming of our Lord lies far in the future. In view of the fact,
however, that events move so much more swiftly than formerly, so that
what formerly was accomplished in centuries is now accomplished in a
few years, it is quite possible that the return of Christ lies in the
comparatively near future. Whether it comes in the near or remote
future as measured in the scale of human lives, we may be certain that
it lies in the near future as measured in the scales of God according
to whom a thousand years is as one day. In view of present conditions,
however, there seems to be little or nothing in the Scriptures to
warrant the notion that Jesus will return within the lifetime of the
present generation.” [67]

The world is perhaps yet young. Certainly God has not yet given any
adequate exhibition of what He can do with a world truly converted to
righteousness. What we have seen so far appears to be only the
preliminary stage, a temporary triumph of the Devil, whose work is to
be completely overthrown. God’s work spans the centuries. Even the
millenniums are insignificant to Him who inhabits eternity. When we
associate our theology with our astronomy we find that God works on an
unbelievably vast scale. He has spaced millions, perhaps even billions,
of fiery suns throughout the universe,–something like ten million have
already been catalogued. Astronomers tell us, for instance, that the
earth is 92,000,000 miles from the sun and that the light traveling at
the rate of 186,000 miles per second requires only eight minutes to
traverse that distance. They go on to tell us that the nearest fixed
star is so far away that four years are required for its light to reach
us; that the light which we now see coming from the North Star has been
on its journey for 450 years; and that the light from some of the most
distant stars has been on its way for millions of years. In view of
what modern science reveals we find that the period during which man
has lived on earth has been comparatively insignificant. God may have
developments in store for the race which shall be quite
startling,–developments of which we have scarcely dreamed.
__________________________________________________________________

[67] Jesus as He Was and Is, p. 276.
__________________________________________________________________

9. THE VASTNESS OF THE REDEEMED MULTITUDE

The decree of God’s electing and predestinating love, though
discriminating and particular, is, nevertheless, very extensive. “I
saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of
every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before
the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in
their hands; and they cried with a great voice, saying, Salvation unto
our God who sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb,” Revelation 7:9,
10. God the Father has elected untold millions of the human race to
everlasting salvation and eternal happiness. Just what proportion of
the human family He has included in His purpose of mercy, we have not
been informed; but, in view of the future days of prosperity which are
promised to the Church, it may be inferred that much the greater part
will eventually be found among the number of His elect.

In the nineteenth chapter of John’s Revelation a vision is recorded
setting forth in figurative terms the struggle between the forces of
good and evil in the world. Concerning the description there given Dr.
Warfield says: “The section opens with a vision of the victory of the
Word of God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all His enemies.
We see Him come forth from heaven girt for war, followed by the armies
of heaven; the birds of the air are summoned to the feast of corpses
that shall be prepared for them; the armies of the enemy– the beasts
and the kings of the earth–are gathered against Him and are totally
destroyed; and ‘all the birds are filled with their flesh’ (19:11-21).
It is a vivid picture of a complete victory, an entire conquest, that
we have here; and all the imagery of war and battle is employed to give
it life. This is the symbol. The thing symbolized is obviously the
complete victory of the Son of God over all the hosts of wickedness.
Only a single hint of this signification is afforded by the language of
the description, but that is enough. On two occasions we are carefully
told that the sword by which the victory is won proceeds out of the
mouth of the conqueror (verses 15 and 21). We are not to think, as we
read, of any literal war or manual fighting, therefore; the conquest is
wrought by the spoken word–in short, by the preaching of the Gospel.
In fine, we have before us here a picture of the victorious career of
the Gospel of Christ in the world. All the imagery of the dread battle
and its hideous details are but to give us the impression of the
completeness of the victory. Christ’s Gospel is to conquer the earth;
He is to overcome all His enemies.” [68]

To us who live between the first and second coming of Christ it is
given to see the conquest taking place. As to how long the conquest
continues before it is crowned with victory, or as to how long the
converted world is to await her coming Lord, we are not told. Today we
are living in a period that is relatively golden as compared with the
first century of the Christian era, and this progress is to go on until
those on this earth shall see a practical fulfillment of the prayer,
“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.” As we
get the broader view of God’s gracious dealings with the sinful world,
we see that He has not distributed His electing grace with niggard
hand, but that His purpose has been the restoration to Himself of the
whole world.

The promise was given to Abraham that his posterity should be a vast
multitude,–”In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will
multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is
upon the sea-shore,” Genesis 22:17; “I will make thy seed as the dust
of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then
may thy seed also be numbered,” Genesis 13:16. And in the New Testament
we discover that this promise refers not merely to the Jews as a
separate people, but that those who are Christians are in the highest
sense the true “sons of Abraham.” “Know therefore, that they that are
of faith, the same are sons of Abraham”; and again, “If ye are Christ’s
then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise,” Galatians 3:7,
29.

Isaiah declared that the pleasure of Jehovah should prosper in the
hands of the Messiah, that He should see of the travail of His soul and
be satisfied. And in view of what He suffered on Calvary we know that
He will not be easily satisfied.

The idea that the saved shall far outnumber the lost is also carried
out in the contrasts drawn in Scripture language. Heaven is uniformly
pictured as the next world, as a great kingdom, a country, a city;
while on the other hand hell is uniformly represented as a
comparatively small place, a prison, a lake (of fire and brimstone), a
pit (perhaps deep, but narrow), (Luke 20:35; 1 Timothy 6:17; Revelation
21:1; Matthew 5:3; Hebrews 11:16; 1 Peter 3:19; Revelation 19:20;
20:10, 14, 15; 21:8-27). When the angels and saints are mentioned in
Scripture they are said to be hosts, myriads, an innumerable multitude,
ten thousand times ten thousand and many more thousands of thousands;
but no such language is ever used in regard to the lost, and by
contrast their number appears to be relatively insignificant (Luke
2:13; Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 5:11). “The circle of God’s election,”
says Shedd, “is a great circle of the heavens and not that of a
treadmill. The kingdom of Satan is insignificant in contrast with the
kingdom of Christ. In the immense range of God’s dominion, good is the
rule, and evil is the exception. Sin is a speck upon the azure of
eternity; a spot upon the sun. Hell is only a corner of the universe.”

Judging from these considerations it thus appears (if we may hazard a
guess) that the number of those who are saved may eventually bear some
such proportion to those who are lost as the number of free citizens in
our commonwealth today bears to those who are in the prisons and
penitentiaries; or that the company of the saved may be likened to the
main stalk of the tree which grows and flourishes, while the lost are
but as the small limbs and prunings which are cut off and which perish
in the fires. Who even among non-Calvinists would not wish that this
were true?

But, it may be asked, do not the verses, “Narrow is the gate, and
straightened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that
find it,” and, “Many are called, but few chosen,” Matthew 7:14; 22:14,
teach that many more are lost than saved? We believe these verses are
meant to be understood in a temporal sense, as describing the
conditions which Jesus and His disciples saw existing in Palestine in
their day. The great majority of the people about them were not walking
in the ways of righteousness, and the words are spoken from the
standpoint of the moment rather than from the standpoint of the distant
Judgment Day. In these words we have presented to us a picture which
was true to life as they saw it, and which would, for that matter,
describe the world as it has been even up to the present time. But,
asks Dr. Warfield, “As the years and centuries and ages flow on, can it
never be–is it not to be–that the proportion following ‘the two ways’
shall be reversed?”

These verses are also designed to teach us that the way of salvation is
a way of difficulty and of sacrifice, and that it is our duty to
address ourselves to it with diligence and persistence. No one is to
assume his salvation as a matter of course. Those who enter into the
kingdom of heaven do so through many tribulations; hence the command,
“Strive to enter in by the narrow door,” Luke 13:24. The choice in life
is represented as a choice between two roads, one is broad, smooth, and
easy to travel, but leads to destruction. The other is narrow and
difficult, and leads to life. “There is no more reason to suppose that
this similitude teaches that the saved shall be fewer than the lost
than there is to suppose that the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew
25:lff) teaches that they shall be precisely equal in number; and there
is far less reason to suppose that this similitude teaches that the
saved shall be few comparatively to the lost than there is to suppose
that the parable of the Tares in the corn (Matthew 13:24ff) teaches
that the lost shall be inconsiderable in number in comparison with the
saved–for that, indeed, is an important part of the teaching of that
parable.” [69] And we may add that there is no more reason to suppose
that this reference to the two ways teaches that the number of the
saved shall be fewer than the number of the lost than there is to
suppose that the parable of the lost sheep teaches that only one out of
a hundred goes astray and that even it shall eventually be brought
back, which would indeed be absolute restorationism.
__________________________________________________________________

[68] Biblical Doctrines, Art. the Millenium and the Apocalypse, p. 647.

[69] Warfield, article, “Are They Few That Be Saved?”
__________________________________________________________________

10. THE WORLD IS GROWING BETTER

The redemption of the world is a long, slow process, extending through
the centuries, yet surely approaching an appointed goal. We live in the
day of advancing victory and see the conquest taking place.

There are periods of spiritual prosperity and periods of depression;
yet over all there is progress. Looking back across the two thousand
years since Christ came, we can see that there has been marvelous
progress. This course shall ultimately be completed, and before Christ
comes again we shall see a Christianized world. This does not mean that
all sin shall ever be eradicated–there shall always be some tares
among the wheat until the time of the harvest, and even the righteous,
while they remain in this world, sometimes fall victims to sin and
temptation. But it does mean that as today we see some Christianized
groups and communities, so eventually we shall see a Christianized
world.

“The true way of judging the world is to compare its present with its
past condition and note in which direction it is moving. Is it going
backward, or forward, is it getting worse or better? It may be wrapped
in gloomy twilight, but is it the twilight of the evening, or of the
morning? Are the shadows deepening into starless night, or are they
fleeing before the rising sun? … One glance at the world as it is
today compared with what it was ten or twenty centuries ago shows us
that it has swept through a wide arc and is moving toward the morning.”
[70]

Today there is much more wealth consecrated to the service of the
Church than ever before; and, in spite of the sad defection toward
Modernism in many places, we believe there is far more really earnest
evangelistic and missionary activity than has ever been known before.
The number of Bible schools, Christian colleges, and seminaries in
which the Bible is systematically studied is growing much more rapidly
than the population. Last year over 11,000,000 copies or portions of
the Bible in various languages were distributed in the home and foreign
lands by the American Bible Society alone–a fact which means that the
Bible is being broadcast over the earth as never before.

The Christian Church has made great progress in many parts of the
world, and especially during the last two or three centuries it has
developed thousands upon thousands of individual churches and has been
a powerful influence for good in the lives of millions of people. It
has established innumerable schools and hospitals. Under its benign
influence ethical culture and social service have greatly advanced in
the world, and the moral standards of the nations are much higher today
than when the Church was first planted here.

“Already the Church has penetrated every continent and planted itself
on every island and flung its outposts around the equator and from pole
to pole. It is now the greatest organization on earth, the one world
enterprise. And it has results to show that are not unpromising. In our
own country Christianity has grown at least five times faster than the
population. One hundred years ago there was one professing Christian in
every fifteen of the population, and there now is one in every three,
and excluding children, one in every two. In the world at large the
results are astonishing. In 1500 AD. there were 100,000,000 nominal
Christians in the world; in 1800 there were 200,000,000, and the latest
statistics show that, out of a total world population of 1,646,491,000
there are now 564,510,000 nominal Christians, or about one-third of the
population of the globe. Christianity has grown more in the last one
hundred years than in the preceding eighteen hundred.” [71]

The statement that Christianity has grown more in the last one hundred
years than in the preceding eighteen hundred seems to be approximately
correct. According to late statistics, 1950, Christianity has a
considerably larger number of nominal adherents than the combined total
of any other two world religions. These figures state that there are
approximately 640,000,000 Christians, 300,000,000 Confucianists
(including Taoists), 230,000,000 Hindus, 220,000,000 Mohammedans,
150,000,000 Buddhists, 125,000,000 Animists, 20,000,000 Shintoists, and
15,000,000 Jews. (And while many of those who are listed as Christians
are only “nominally” such, the proportion of true Christians is
probably as great or greater than is the proportion in any of the pagan
religions). All of these other religions, with the exception of
Mohammedanism, are much older than Christianity. Furthermore,
Christianity alone is able to grow and flourish under modern
civilization, while all of the other religions soon disintegrate when
brought under its glaring light.

Only within the last one hundred years have foreign missions really
come into their own. As they have recently been developed, with great
church organizations behind them, they are in position to carry on a
work of evangelism in heathen lands such as the world has never yet
seen. It is safe to say that the present generation living in India,
China, Korea, and Japan, has seen greater changes in religion, society,
and government than occurred in the preceding two thousand years. And
when we contrast the rapid spread of Christianity in recent years with
the rapid disintegration that is taking place in all of the other world
religions, it appears very plain that Christianity is the future world
religion. In the light of these facts we face the future confident that
the best is yet to be.
__________________________________________________________________

[70] The Coming of the Lord, P. 250. For a very excellent discussion of
the question, “Is the World Growing Better?” see Snowden’s book, Chap.
VIII.

[71] Snowden, The Coming of Our Lord, p. 265.
__________________________________________________________________

11. INFANT SALVATION

Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy
are saved. The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the
children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so
in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not
pass judgment on the children of heathens who die before coming to
years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the
Confession, too, preserves silence. Our outstanding theologians,
however, mindful of the fact that God’s “tender mercies are over all
His works,” and depending on His mercy widened as broadly as possible,
have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never
committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be
pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principles.

Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T.
Shedd, and B. B. Warfield. Concerning those who die in infancy, Dr.
Warfield says: “Their destiny is determined irrespective of their
choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution
on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an
unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls,
through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit
prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills . . . And
if death in infancy does depend on God’s providence, it is assuredly
God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made
participants of His unconditional salvation . . . This is but to say
that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the
foundation of the world. If only a single infant dying in irresponsible
infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all
infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved, but
doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto, have entered into
life by a non-Arminian pathway.” [72]

Certainly there is nothing in the Calvinistic system which would
prevent us from believing this; and until it is proven that God could
not predestinate to eternal life all those whom He is pleased to call
in infancy we may be permitted to hold this view.

Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies
to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants
are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for
it. Their “salvation” is real. It is possible only through the grace of
Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of
minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin,
Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their
salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls
from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the
suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of
original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve
eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are “saved” to be
very small and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to
God to be small also.

The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the
Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly
determined irrespective of any faith , repentance or good works,
whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place
in Arminianism or any other system. Furthermore, it would seem that a
system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act
of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy
must either be given another period of probation after death, in order
that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated.

In regard to this question Dr. S. G. Craig has written: “We take it
that no doctrine of infant salvation is Christian that does not assume
that infants are lost members of a lost race for whom there is no
salvation apart from Christ. It must be obvious to all, therefore, that
the doctrine that all dying in infancy are saved will not fit into the
Roman Catholic or Anglo-Catholic system of thought with their teaching
of baptismal regeneration; as clearly most of those who have died in
infancy have not been baptized. It is obvious also that the Lutheran
system of thought provides no place for the notion that all dying in
infancy are saved because of the necessity it attaches to the means of
grace, especially the Word and the Sacraments. If grace is only in the
means of grace–in the case of infants in baptism–it seems clear that
most of those who have died in infancy have not been the recipients of
grace. Equally clear is it that the Arminian has no right to believe in
the salvation of all dying in infancy; in fact, it is not so clear that
he has any right to believe in the salvation of any dying in infancy.
For according to the Arminians, even the evangelical Arminians, God in
His grace has merely provided men with an opportunity for salvation. It
does not appear, however, that a mere opportunity for salvation can be
of any avail for those dying in infancy.” [73]

Though rejecting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and turning
the baptism of the non-elect into an empty form, Calvinism, on the
other hand, extends saving grace far beyond the boundaries of the
visible Church. If it is true that all of those who die in infancy, in
heathen as well as in Christian lands, are saved, then more than half
of the human race even up to the present time has been among the elect.
Furthermore, it may be said that since Calvinists bold that saving
faith in Christ is the only requirement for salvation on the part of
adults, they never make membership in the external Church to be either
a requirement or a guarantee of salvation. They believe that many
adults who have no connection with the external Church are nevertheless
saved. Every consistent Christian will, of course, submit himself for
baptism in accordance with the plain Scripture command and will become
a member of the external Church; yet many others, either because of
weakness of faith or because they lack the opportunity, do not carry
out that command.

It has often been charged that the Westminster Confession in stating
that “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by
Christ” (Chap. X. Sec. 3), implies that there are non-elect infants,
who, dying in infancy, are lost, and that the Presbyterian Church has
taught that some dying in infancy are lost. Concerning this Dr. Craig
says: “The history of the phrase ‘Elect infants dying in infancy’ makes
clear that the contrast implied was not between ‘elect infants dying in
infancy’ and ‘non-elect infants dying in infancy,’ but rather between
‘elect infants dying in infancy’ and ‘elect infants living to grow up.’
” However, in order to guard against misunderstanding, furthered by
unfriendly controversialists, the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.
adopted in 1903 a Declaratory Statement which reads as follows: “With
reference to Chapter X, Section 3, of the Confession of Faith, that it
is not to be regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost.
We believe that all dying in infancy are included in the election of
grace, and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who
works when and where and how He pleases.”

Concerning this Declaratory Statement Dr. Craig says: “It is obvious
that the Declaratory Statement goes beyond the teaching of Chapter X,
Section 3 of the Confession of Faith inasmuch as it states positively
that all who die in infancy are saved. Some hold that the Declaratory
Statement goes beyond the Scripture in teaching that all those dying in
infancy are saved; but, be that as it may, it makes it impossible for
any person to even plausibly maintain that Presbyterians teach that
there are non-elect infants who die in infancy. No doubt there have
been individual Presbyterians who held that some of those who die in
infancy have been lost; but such was never the official teaching of the
Presbyterian Church and as matters now stand such a position is
contradicted by the Church’s creed.” [74]

It is sometimes charged that Calvin taught the actual damnation of some
of those who die in infancy. A careful examination of his writings,
however, does not bear out that charge. He explicitly taught that some
of the elect die in infancy and that they are saved as infants. He also
taught that there were reprobate infants; for he held that reprobation
as well as election was eternal, and that the non-elect come into this
life reprobate. But nowhere did he teach that the reprobate die and are
lost as infants. He of course rejected the Pelagian view which denied
original sin and grounded the salvation of those who die in infancy on
their supposed innocence and sinlessness. Calvin’s views in this
respect have been quite thoroughly investigated by Dr. R. A. Webb and
his findings are summarized in the following paragraph: “Calvin teaches
that all the reprobate ‘procure’–(that is his own word)–’procure’
their own destruction; and they procure their destruction by their own
personal and conscious acts of ‘impiety,’ ‘wickedness,’ and
‘rebellion.’ Now reprobate infants, though guilty of original sin and
under condemnation, cannot, while they are infants, thus ‘procure’
their own destruction by their personal acts of impiety, wickedness,
and rebellion. They must, therefore, live to the years of moral
responsibility in order to perpetrate the acts of impiety, wickedness
and rebellion, which Calvin defines as the mode through which they
procure their destruction. While, therefore, Calvin teaches that there
are reprobate infants, and that these will be finally lost, he nowhere
teaches that they will be lost as infants, and while they are infants;
but, on the contrary, he declares that all the reprobate ‘procure’
their own destruction by personal acts of impiety, wickedness and
rebellion. Consequently, his own reasoning compels him to hold (to be
consistent with himself), that no reprobate child can die in infancy;
but all such must live to the age of moral accountability, and
translate original sin into actual sin.” [75]

In none of Calvin’s writings does he say, either directly or by good
and necessary inference, that any dying in infancy are lost. Most of
the passages which are brought forth by opponents to prove this point
are merely assertions of his well known doctrine of original sin, in
which he taught the universal guilt and depravity of the entire race.
Most of these are from highly controversial sections where he is
discussing other doctrines and where he speaks unguardedly; but when
taken in their context the meaning is not often in doubt. Calvin simply
says of all infants what David specifically said of himself: “Behold, I
was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me,”
Psalm 51:5; or what Paul said, “In Adam all die,” 1 Corinthians 15:22;
or again, that all are “by nature, the children of wrath,” Ephesians
2:3.

We believe that we have now shown that the doctrine of election is in
every point Scriptural and a plain dictate of common sense. Those who
oppose this doctrine do so because they neither understand nor consider
the majesty and holiness of God, nor the corruption and guilt of their
own nature. They forget that they stand before their Maker not as those
who may justly claim His mercy, but as condemned criminals who deserve
only punishment. Furthermore, they want to be independent to work out
their own scheme of salvation rather than to accept God’s plan which is
by grace. This doctrine of election will not harmonize with any
covenant of works, nor with a mongrel covenant of works and grace; but
it is the only possible outcome of a covenant of pure grace.
__________________________________________________________________

[72] Two Studies in the History of Doctrine, p. 230.

[73] Christianity Today, Jan. 1931, p. 14.

[74] Christianity Today, Jan. 1931. p. 14.

[75] Calvin Memorial Addresses, p. 112.
__________________________________________________________________

12.SUMMARY OF THE REFORMED DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

Election is a sovereign free act of God, through which He determines
who shall be made heirs of heaven.

The elective decree was made in eternity.

The elective decree contemplates the race as already fallen.

The elect are brought from a state of sin and into a state of
blessedness and happiness.

Election is personal determining what particular individuals shall be
saved.

Election includes both means and ends,–election to eternal life
includes election to righteous living here in this world.

The elective decree is made effective by the efficient work of the Holy
Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases.

God’s common grace would incline all men to good if not resisted.

The elective decree leaves others who are not elected–others who
suffer the just consequences of their sin.

Some men are permitted to follow the evil which they freely choose, to
their own destruction.

God, in His sovereignty, could regenerate all men if He chose to do so.

The Judge of all the earth will do right, and will extend His saving
grace to multitudes who are undeserving.

Election is not based on foreseen faith or good works, but only on
God’s sovereign good pleasure.

Much the larger portion of the human race has been elected to life.

All of those dying in infancy are among the elect.

There has also been an election of individuals and of nations to
external and temporal favors and privileges–an election which falls
short of salvation.

The doctrine of election is repeatedly taught and emphasized throughout
the Scriptures.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XII

1. Statement of the Doctrine. 2. The Infinite Value of Christ’s
Atonement. 3. The Atonement is Limited in Purpose and Application. 4.
Christ’s Work as a Perfect Fulfillment of the Law. 5. A Ransom. 6. The
Divine Purpose in Christ’s Sacrifice. 7. The Exclusion of the
Non-Elect. 8. The Argument from the Foreknowledge of God. 9. Certain
Benefits Which Extend to Mankind In General.

1. STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE

The question which we are to discuss under the subject of “Limited
Atonement” is, Did Christ offer up Himself a sacrifice for the whole
human race, for every individual without distinction or exception; or
did His death have special reference to the elect? In other words, was
the sacrifice of Christ merely intended to make the salvation of all
men possible, or was it intended to render certain the salvation of
those who had been given to Him by the Father? Arminians hold that
Christ died for all men alike, while Calvinists hold that in the
intention and secret plan of God Christ died for the elect only, and
that His death had only an incidental reference to others in so far as
they are partakers of common grace. The meaning might be brought out
more clearly if we used the phrase “Limited Redemption” rather than
“Limited Atonement.” The Atonement is, of course, strictly an infinite
transaction; the limitation comes in, theologically, in the application
of the benefits of the atonement, that is in redemption. But since the
phrase “Limited Atonement” has become well established in theological
usage and its meaning is well known we shall continue to use it.

Concerning this doctrine the Westminster Confession says: “. . .
Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed in
Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit
working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by
His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed
by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and
saved, but the elect only.” [76]

It will be seen at once that this doctrine necessarily follows from the
doctrine of election. If from eternity God has planned to save one
portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a
contradiction to say that His work has equal reference to both
portions, or that He sent His Son to die for those whom He had
predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He
was sent to die for those whom He had chosen for salvation. These two
doctrines must stand or fall together. We cannot logically accept one
and reject the other. If God has elected some and not others to eternal
life, then plainly the primary purpose of Christ’s work was to redeem
the elect.

2. THE INFINITE VALUE OF CHRIST’S ATONEMENT

This doctrine does not mean that any limit can be set to the value or
power of the atonement which Christ made. The value of the atonement
depends upon, and is measured by, the dignity of the person making it;
and since Christ suffered as a Divine-human person the value of His
suffering was infinite. The Scripture writers tell us plainly that the
“Lord of glory” was crucified, 1 Cor. 2:8; that wicked men “killed the
Prince of life,” Acts 3:15; and that God “purchased” the Church “with
His own blood,” Acts 20:28. The atonement, therefore, was infinitely
meritorious and might have saved every member of the human race had
that been God’s plan. It was limited only in the sense that it was
intended for, and is applied to, particular persons; namely for those
who are actually saved.

Some misunderstanding occasionally arises here because of a false
assumption that Calvinists teach that Christ suffered so much for one
soul, and so much for another, and that He would have suffered more if
more were to have been saved. We believe, however, that even if many
fewer of the human race were to have been pardoned and saved, an
atonement of infinite value would have been necessary in order to have
secured for them these blessings; and though many more, or even all men
were to have been pardoned and saved, the sacrifice of Christ would
have been amply sufficient as the ground or basis of their salvation.
Just as it is necessary for the sun to give off as much heat if only
one plant is to grow upon the earth as if the earth is to be covered
with vegetation, so it was necessary for Christ to suffer as much if
only one soul was to be saved as if a large number or even all mankind
were to be saved. Since the sinner had offended against a Person of
infinite dignity, and had been sentenced to suffer eternally, nothing
but a sacrifice of infinite value could atone for him. No one assumes
that since the sin of Adam was the ground for the condemnation of the
race, he sinned so much for one man and much for another and would have
sinned more if there were to have been more sinners. Why then should
they make the assumption in regard to the suffering of Christ?

3. THE ATONEMENT IS LIMITED IN PURPOSE AND APPLICATION

While the value of the atonement was sufficient to save all mankind, it
was efficient to save only the elect. It is indifferently well adapted
to the salvation of one man to that of another, thus making the
salvation of every man objectively possible; yet because of subjective
difficulties, arising on account of the sinners own inability either to
see or appreciate the things of God, only those are saved who are
regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. The reason why God does
not apply this grace to all men has not been fully revealed.

When the atonement is made universal its inherent value is destroyed.
If it is applied to all men, and if some are lost, the conclusion is
that it makes salvation objectively possible for all but that it does
not actually save anybody. According to the Arminian theory the
atonement has simply made it possible for men to co-operate with divine
grace and thus save themselves–if they will. But tell us of one cured
of disease and yet dying of cancer, and the story will be equally
luminous with that of one eased of sin and yet perishing through
unbelief. The nature of the atonement settles its extent. If it merely
made salvation possible, it applied to all men. If it effectively
secured salvation, it had reference only the elect. As Dr. Warfield
says, “The things we have to choose between are an atonement of high
value, or an atonement of wide extension. The two cannot go together.”
The work of Christ can be universalized only by evaporating its
substance.

Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the
atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the
extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons (although
as has already been shown, he believes that it is efficacious for the
salvation of the large proportion of the human race); while the
Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not
actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not
qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not
quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes
all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide
bridge which goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the
Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does
the Calvinist.

4. CHRIST’S WORK AS A PERFECT FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW

If the benefits of the atonement are universal and unlimited, it must
have been what the Arminians represent it to have been–merely a
sacrifice to blot out the curse which rested upon the race through the
fall in Adam, a mere substitute for the execution of the law which God
in His sovereignty saw fit to accept in lieu of what the sinner was
bound to render, and not a perfect satisfaction which fulfilled the
demands of justice. It would mean that God no longer demands perfect
obedience as He did of Adam, but that He now offers salvation on lower
term. God, then, would remove legal obstacles and would accept such
faith and evangelical obedience as the person with a graciously
restored ability could render if he chose, the Holy Spirit of course
aiding in a general way. Thus grace would be extended in that God
offers an easier way of salvation–He accepts fifty cents on the
dollar, so to speak, since the crippled sinner can pay no more.

On the other hand Calvinists hold that the law of perfect obedience
which was originally given to Adam was “permanent, that God has never
done anything which would convey the impression that the law was too
rigid in its requirements, or too severe in its penalty, or that it
stood in need either of abrogation or of derogation. Divine justice
demands that the sinner shall be punished, either in himself or in his
substitute. We hold that Christ acted in a strictly substitutionary way
for His people, that He made a full satisfaction for their sins, thus
blotting out the curse from Adam and all their temporal sins; and that
by His sinless life He perfectly kept for them the law which Adam had
broken, thus earning for His people the reward of eternal life. We
believe that the requirement for salvation now as originally is perfect
obedience, that the merits of Christ are imputed to His people as the
only basis of their salvation, and that they enter heaven clothed only
with the cloak of His perfect righteousness and utterly destitute of
any merit properly their own. Thus grace, pure grace, is extended not
in lowering the requirements for salvation but in the substitution of
Christ for His people. He took their place before the law and did for
them what they could not do for themselves. This Calvinistic principle
is fitted in every way to impress upon us the absolute perfection and
unchangeable obligation of the law which was originally given to Adam.
It is not relaxed or set aside, but is fittingly honored so that its
excellence is shown. In behalf of those who are saved, for whom Christ
acted, and in behalf of those who are subjected to everlasting
punishment, the law in its majesty is enforced and executed.

If the Arminian theory were true it would follow that millions of those
for whom Christ died are finally lost, and that salvation is thus never
applied to many of those for whom it was earned. What benefits, for
instance, can we point to in the lives of the heathens and say that
they have received them from the atonement? It would also follow that
God’s plans many times have been thwarted and defeated by His creatures
and that while He may do according to His will in the armies of heaven,
He does not do so among the inhabitants of the earth.

“The sin of Adam,” says Charles Hodge, “did not make the condemnation
of all men merely possible; it was the ground of their actual
condemnation. So the righteousness of Christ did not make the salvation
of men merely possible, it secured the actual salvation of those for
whom He wrought.”

The great Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon said: “If Christ has
died for you, you can never be lost. God will not punish twice for one
thing. If God punished Christ for your sins He will not punish you.
‘Payment God’s justice cannot twice demand; first, at the bleeding
Saviour’s hand, and then again at mine.’ How can God be just if he
punished Christ, the substitute, and then man himself afterwards?”

5. A RANSOM

Christ is said to have been a ransom for his people “The Son of man
came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a
ransom for many,” Matthew 20:28. Notice, this verse does not say that
He gave His life a ransom for all, but for many. The nature of a ransom
is such that when paid and accepted it automatically frees the persons
for whom it was intended. Otherwise it would not be a true ransom.
Justice demands that those for whom it is paid shall be freed from any
further obligation. If the suffering and death of Christ was a ransom
for all men rather than for the elect only, then the merits of His work
must be communicated to all alike and the penalty of eternal punishment
cannot be justly inflicted on any. God would be unjust if He demanded
this extreme penalty twice over, first from the substitute and then
from the persons themselves. The conclusion then is that the atonement
of Christ does not extend to all men but that it is limited to those
for whom He stood surety; that is, to those who compose His true
Church.

6. THE DIVINE PURPOSE IN CHRIST’S SACRIFICE

If Christ’s death was intended to save all men, then we must say that
God was either unable or unwilling to carry out His plans. But since
the work of God is always efficient, those for whom atonement was made
and those who are actually saved must be the same people. Arminians
suppose that the purposes of God are mutable, and that His purposes may
fail. In saying that He sent His Son to redeem all men, but that after
seeing that such a plan could not be carried out He “elected” those
whom He foresaw would have faith and repent, they represent Him as
willing what never takes place,–as suspending His purposes and plans
upon the volitions and actions of creatures who are totally dependent
on Him. No rational being who has the wisdom and power to carry out his
plans intends what he never accomplishes or adopts plans for an end
which is never attained. Much less would God, whose–wisdom and power
are infinite, work in this manner. We may rest assured that if some men
are lost God never purposed their salvation, and never devised and put
into operation means designed to accomplish that end.

Jesus Himself limited the purpose of His death when He said, “I lay
down my life for the sheep.” If, therefore, He laid down His life for
the sheep, the atoning character of His work was not universal. On
another occasion He said to the Pharisees, “Ye are not my sheep;” and
again, “Ye are of your father the Devil.” Will anyone maintain that He
laid down His life for these, seeing that He so pointedly excludes
them? The angel which appeared to Joseph told him that Mary’s son was
to be called JESUS, because His mission in the world was to save His
people from their sins. He then came not merely to make salvation
possible but actually to save His people; and what He came to do we may
confidently expect Him to have accomplished.

Since the work of God is never in vain, those who are chosen by the
Father, those who are redeemed by the Son, and those who are sanctified
by the Holy Spirit,–or in other words, election, redemption and
sanctification,–must include the same persons. The Arminian doctrine
of a universal atonement makes these unequal and thereby destroys the
perfect harmony within the Trinity. Universal redemption means
universal salvation.

Christ declared that the elect and the redeemed were the same people
when in the intercessory prayer He said. “Thine they were, and thou
gavest them to me,” and “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but
for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine: and all things
that are mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in
them,” John 17:6, 9, 10. And again, “I am the good shepherd; and I know
my own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know
the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep,” John 10:14, 15. The
same teaching is found when we are told to “feed the Church of the Lord
which He purchased with His own blood,” Acts 20:28. We are told that
“Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it,” Ephesians 5:25; and
that He laid down His life for His friends, John 15:13. Christ died for
such as were Paul and John, not for such as were Pharaoh and Judas, who
were” goats and not sheep. We cannot say that His death was intended
for all unless we say that Pharaoh, Judas, etc., were of the sheep,
friends, and Church of Christ.

Furthermore, when it is said that Christ gave His life for His Church,
or for His people, we find it impossible to believe that He gave
Himself as much for reprobates as for those whom He intended to save.
Mankind is divided into two classes and what is distinctly affirmed of
one is impliedly denied of the other. In each case something is said of
those who belong to one group which is not true of those who belong to
the other. When it is said that a man labors and sacrifices health and
strength for his children, it is thereby denied that the motive which
controls him is mere philanthropy, or that the design he has in view is
the good of society. And when it is said that Christ died for His
people it is denied that He died equally for all men.

7. THE EXCLUSION OF THE NON-ELECT

It was not, then, a general and indiscriminate love of which all men
were equally the objects, but a peculiar, mysterious, infinite love for
His elect, which caused God to send His Son into the world to suffer
and die. Any theory which denies this great and precious truth, and
which would explain away this love as merely indiscriminate benevolence
or philanthropy which had all men for its objects, many of whom are
allowed to perish, must be un-Scriptural. Christ died not for an
unorderly mass, but for His people, His bride, His Church.

A farmer prizes his field. But no one supposes that he cares equally
for every plant that grows there, for the “tares” as well as the
“wheat.” God’s field is the world, Matthew 13:38, and he loves it with
an exclusive eye to its “good seed,” the children of the kingdom, and
not the children of the wicked one. It is not the whole of mankind that
is equally loved of God and promiscuously redeemed by Christ. God is
not necessarily communicative of His goodness, as the sun of its light,
or a tree of its cooling shade, which does not choose its objects, but
serves all indifferently without variation or distinction. This would
be to make God of no more understanding than the sun, which shines not
where it pleases, but where it must. He is an understanding person, and
has a sovereign right to choose His own objects.

In Genesis we read that God “put enmity” between the seed of the woman
and the seed of the serpent. Now who were meant by the seed of the
woman and the seed of the serpent? On first thought we might suppose
that the seed of the woman meant the entire human race descended from
Eve. But in Galatians 3:16 Paul uses this term “seed,” and applies it
to Christ as an individual. “He saith not, And to seeds, as of many;
but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” On further
investigation we also find that the seed of the serpent means not
literal descendants of the Devil, but those non-elect members of the
human race, who partake of his sinful nature. Jesus said of His
enemies, “Ye are of your father, the Devil; and the lusts of your
father it is your will to do,” John 8:44. Paul denounced Elymas the
sorcerer as a son of the Devil and an enemy of all righteousness. Judas
is even called a devil, John 6:70. So the seed of the woman and the
seed of the serpent are each a part of the human race. In other parts
of the Scriptures we find that Christ and His people are “one,” that He
dwells in them and is united with them as the vine and the branches are
united. And since at the very beginning God “put enmity” between these
two groups, it is plain that He never loved all alike, nor intended to
redeem all alike. Universal redemption and God’s sentence on the
serpent can never go together.

There is also a parallel to be noticed between the high priest of
ancient Israel and Christ who is our high priest; for the former, we
are told, was a type of the latter. On the great day of atonement the
high priest offered sacrifices for the sins of the twelve tribes of
Israel. He interceded for them and for them only. Likewise, Christ
prayed not for the world but for His people. The intercession of the
high priest secured for the Israelites blessings from which all other
peoples were excluded; and the intercession of Christ, which also is
limited but of a much higher order, shall certainly be efficacious in
the highest sense, for Him the Father heard always. Furthermore, it is
not necessary that God’s mercy shall extend to all men without
exception before it can be truly and properly called infinite; for all
men taken together would not constitute a multitude strictly and
properly infinite. The Scriptures plainly tell us that the Devil and
the fallen angels are left outside of His benevolent purposes. But His
mercy is infinite in that it rescues the great multitude of His elect
from indescribable and eternal sin and misery to indescribable and
eternal blessedness.

While the Arminians hold that Christ died equally for all men and that
He obtained sufficient grace to enable all men to repent, believe, and
persevere, if they will only co-operate with it, they also hold that
those who refuse to co-operate shall on that account and through all
eternity be punished far more severely than if Christ had never died
for them at all. We see that so far in the history of the human race
the large proportion of the adult population have failed to co-operate
and have thus been allowed to bring upon themselves greater misery than
if Christ had never come. Surely a view which permits God’s work of
redemption to issue in such failure, and which sheds so little glory on
the atonement of Christ, cannot be true. Vastly more of God’s love and
mercy for His people is seen in the Calvinistic doctrines of
unconditional election and limited atonement than is seen in the
Arminian doctrine of conditional election and unlimited atonement.

8. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD

The argument from the foreknowledge of God is of itself sufficient to
prove this doctrine. Is not God’s mind infinite? Are not His
perceptions perfect? Who can believe that He, like a feeble mortal,
would “shoot at the convoy without perceiving the individual birds?”
Since He knew beforehand who they were that would be saved–and the
more evangelical Arminians admit that God does have exact foreknowledge
of all events–He would not have sent Christ intending to save those
who he positively foreknew would be lost. For, as Calvin remarks,
“Where would have been the consistency of Gods calling to Himself such
as He knows will never come?” If a man knows that in an adjoining room
there are ten oranges, seven of which are good and three of which are
rotten, he does not go into the room expecting to get ten good ones. Or
if it is foreknown that out of a group of fifty men to whom invitations
to a banquet might be sent a certain ten will not come, the host does
not send out invitations expecting those ten as well as the others to
accept. They do but deceive themselves who, admitting God’s
foreknowledge, say that Christ died for all men; for what is that but
to attribute folly to Him whose ways are perfect? To represent God as
earnestly striving to do what He knows He will not do is to represent
Him as acting foolishly.

9. CERTAIN BENEFITS WHICH EXTEND TO MANKIND IN GENERAL

In conclusion let it be said that Calvinists do not deny that mankind
in general receive some important benefits from Christ’s atonement.
Calvinists admit that it arrests the penalty which would have been
inflicted upon the whole race because of Adam’s sin; that it forms a
basis for the preaching of the Gospel and thus introduces many
uplifting moral influences into the world and restrains many evil
influences. Paul could say to the heathen people of Lystra that God
“left not Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you
from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food
and gladness,” Acts 14:17. God makes His sun to shine on the evil and
the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. Many temporal
blessings are thus secured for all men, although these fall short of
being sufficient to insure salvation.

Cunningham has stated the belief of Calvinists very clearly in the
following paragraph: – “It is not denied by the advocates of particular
redemption, or of a limited atonement, that mankind in general, even
those who ultimately perish, do derive some advantages or benefits from
Christ’s death; and no position they hold requires them to deny this.
They believe that important benefits have accrued to the whole human
race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits those who are
finally impenitent and unbelieving partake. What they deny is, that
Christ intended to procure, or did procure, for all men these blessings
which are the proper and peculiar fruits of His death, in its specific
character as an atonement,–that He procured or purchased
redemption–that in, pardon and reconciliation–for all men. Many
blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ,
collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which
men, viewed collectively, stand to each other. All these benefits were
of course foreseen by God, when He resolved to send His Son into the
world; they were contemplated or designed by Him, as what men should
receive and enjoy. They are to be regarded and received as bestowed by
Him, and as thus unfolding His glory, indicating His character, and
actually accomplishing His purposes; and they are to be viewed as
coming to men through the channel of Christ’s mediation,–of His
suffering and death.” [77]

There is, then, a certain sense in which Christ died for all men, and
we do not reply to the Arminian tenet with an unqualified negative. But
what we do maintain is that the death of Christ had special reference
to the elect in that it was effectual for their salvation, and that the
effects which are produced in others are only incidental to this one
great purpose.
__________________________________________________________________

[76] Ch. III, Sec. 4.

[77] Historical Theology, II, p. 333.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIII

Efficacious Grace

1. Teaching of the Westminster Confession. 2. Necessity for the Change.
3. An Inward Change Wrought by Supernatural Power. 4. The Effect
Produced in the Soul. 5. The Sufficiency of Christ’s
Work–Evangelicalism. 6. Arminian View of Universal Grace. 7. No
Violation of Man’s Free Agency. 8. Common Grace.

1. TEACHING OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION

The Westminster Confession states the doctrine of Efficacious Grace
thus:–”All those whom God has predestinated unto life, and those only,
He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,
by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of death, in which they are
by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their
minds spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking
away their heart of stone, and giving them a heart of flesh; renewing
their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which
is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they
come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

“This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from
any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein,
until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby
enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and
conveyed by it.” [78]

And the Shorter Catechism, in answer to the question “What is effectual
calling?” says, “Effectual calling is the Work of God’s Spirit,
whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in
the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He doth persuade and
enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel.”
[79]

2. NECESSITY FOR THE CHANGE

The merits of Christ’s obedience and suffering are sufficient for,
adapted to, and freely offered to all men. The question then arises,
Why is one saved, and another lost? What causes some men to repent and
believe, while others, with the same external privileges, reject the
Gospel and continue in impenitence and unbelief? The Calvinist says
that it is God who makes this difference, that he efficaciously
persuades some to come to Him; but the Arminian ascribes it to the men
themselves.

As Calvinists we hold that the condition of men since the fall is such
that if left to themselves they would continue in their state of
rebellion and refuse all offers of salvation. Christ would then have
died in vain. But since it was promised that He should see of the
travail of His soul and be satisfied, the effects of that sacrifice
have not been left suspended upon the whim of man’s changeable and
sinful will. Rather, the work of God in redemption has been rendered
effective through the mission of the Holy Spirit who so operates on the
chosen people that they are brought to repentance and faith, and thus
made heirs of eternal life.

The teaching of the Scriptures is such that we must say that man in his
natural state is radically corrupt, and that he can never become holy
and happy through any power of his own. He is spiritually dead, and
must be saved by Christ if at all. Common reason tells us that if a man
is so fallen so to be at enmity with God, that enmity must be removed
before he can have any desire to do God’s will. If a sinner is to
desire redemption through Christ, he must receive a new disposition. He
must be born again, and from above (John 3:3). It is easy enough for us
to see that the Devil and the demons would have to be thus sovereignly
changed if they were ever to be saved; yet the innate sinful principles
which actuate fallen man are of the same nature, although not yet so
intense, as are those which actuate fallen angels. If man is dead in
sin, then nothing short of this supernatural life-giving power of the
Holy Spirit will ever cause him to do that which is spiritually good.
If it were possible for him to enter heaven while still possessed of
the old nature, then, for him, heaven would be as bad as hell; for he
would be out of harmony with his environment. He would loathe its very
atmosphere and would be in misery when in the presence of God. Hence
the necessity for the inward work of the Holy Spirit.

In the nature of the case the first movement toward salvation can no
more come from man than his body if dead could originate its own life.
Regeneration is a sovereign gift of God, graciously bestowed on those
whom He has chosen; and for this great re-creative work God alone is
competent. It cannot be granted on the foresight of any thing good in
the subjects of this saving change, for in their unrenewed nature they
are incapable of acts with right motives toward God; hence none could
possibly be foreseen. In his unregenerate state man never adequately
realizes his utterly helpless condition. He imagines that he is able to
reform himself and turn to God if he chooses. He even imagines that he
is able to counteract the designs of infinite Wisdom, and to defeat the
agency of Omnipotence itself. As Dr. Warfield says, “Sinful man stands
in need, not of inducements or assistance to save himself, but
precisely of saving; and Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge,
or woo, or help him to save himself, but to save him.”

3. AN INWARD CHANGE WROUGHT BY SUPERNATURAL POWER

In the Scriptures this change is called a regeneration (Titus 3:5), a
spiritual resurrection which is wrought by the same mighty power with
which God wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead (Eph.
1:19, 20), a calling out of darkness into God’s marvelous light (1
Peter 2:9), a passing out of death into life (John 5:24), a new birth
(John 3:3), a making alive (Col. 2:13), a taking away of the heart of
stone and giving of a heart of flesh (Ezek. 11:19), and the subject of
the change is said to be a new creature (II Cor. 5:17). Such
descriptions completely refute the Arminian notion that regeneration is
primarily man’s act, induced by moral persuasion or the mere influence
of the truth as presented in a general way by the Holy Spirit. And just
because this change is produced by power from on high which is the
living spring of a new and re-created life, it is irresistible and
permanent.

The regeneration of the soul is something which is wrought in us, and
not an act performed by us. It is an instantaneous change from
spiritual death to spiritual life. It is not even a thing of which we
are conscious at the moment it occurs, but rather something which lies
lower than consciousness. At the moment of its occurrence the soul is
as passive as was Lazarus when he was called back to life by Jesus.
Concerning the soul in regeneration Charles Hodge says: “It is the
subject, and not the agent of the change. The soul co-operates, or, is
active in what precedes and in what follows the change, but the change
itself is something experienced, and not something done. The blind and
the lame who came to Christ, may have undergone much labor in getting
into His presence, and they joyfully exerted the new power imparted to
them, but they were entirely passive in the moment of the healing. They
in no way co-operated in the production of that effect. The same is
true in regeneration.” [80] And again he says: “The same doctrine on
this subject is taught in other words when regeneration is declared to
be a new birth. At birth the child enters upon a new state of
existence. Birth is not its own act. It is born. It comes from a state
of darkness, in which the objects adapted to its nature cannot act on
it or awaken its activities. As soon as it comes into the world all its
faculties are awakened; it sees, feels, and hears, and gradually
unfolds all its faculties as a rational and moral, as well as a
physical being. The scriptures teach that it is thus in regeneration.
The soul enters upon a new state. It is introduced into a new world. A
whole class of objects before unknown or unappreciated are revealed to
it, and exercise upon it their appropriate influence.” [81]

Regeneration involves an essential change of character. It is a making
the tree good in order that the fruit may be good. As a result of this
change, the person passes from a state of unbelief to one of saving
faith, not by any process of research or argument, but of inward
experience. And as we had nothing to do with our physical birth, but
received it as a sovereign gift of God, we likewise have nothing to do
with our spiritual birth but receive it also as a sovereign gift. Each
occurred without any exercise of our own power, and even without our
consent being asked. We no more resist the latter than we resist the
former. And as we go ahead and live our own natural lives after being
born, so we go ahead and work out our own salvation after being
regenerated.

The Scriptures pointedly teach that the pre-requisite for entrance into
the Kingdom of God is a radical transformation wrought by the Spirit of
God Himself. And since this work on the soul is sovereign and
supernatural it may be granted or withheld according to the good
pleasure of God. Consequently, salvation, to whomsoever it may be
granted, is entirely of grace. The born-again Christian comes to see
that God is in reality “the author and perfecter” of his faith (Heb.
12:2), and that in this respect He has done a work for him which He has
not done for his unconverted neighbor. In answer to the question, “Who
maketh thee to differ? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive?”
(I Cor. 4:7), he replies that it is God who has put the difference
between men, especially between the redeemed and the lost. If any
person believes, it is because God has quickened him; and if any person
fails to believe, it is because God has withheld that grace which He
was under no oblation to bestow. Strictly speaking there is no such
thing as a “self-made” man; the highest type of man is the one who can
say with Paul, “By the grace of God I am what I am.”

When Jesus said, “Lazarus, come forth,” a mighty power went along with
the command and gave effect to it. Lazarus, of course, was not
conscious of any other than his own power working in him; but when he
later understood the situation he undoubtedly saw that he had been
called into life wholly by divine power. God’s power was primary, his
was secondary, and would never have been exerted except in response to
the divine. It is in this manner that every redeemed soul is brought
from spiritual death to spiritual life. And just as the dead Lazarus
was first called back into life and then breathed and ate, so the soul
dead in sin is first transferred to spiritual life and then exercises
faith and repentance and does good works.

Paul emphasized this very point when he said that although Paul might
plant and Apollos might water, it was God who gave the increase. Mere
human efforts are unavailing. If a crop of wheat is to be raised, man
can do only the most external and mechanical things toward that end. It
is God who gives the increase through the sovereign control of forces
which are entirely outside the sphere of man’s influence. Likewise, in
regard to the soul it matters not how eloquent the preacher may be,
unless God opens the heart there will be no conversion. Here especially
man does only the most external and mechanical things and it is the
Holy Spirit who imparts the new principle of spiritual life.

The Scripture doctrine of the fall represents man as morally ruined,
unable by nature to do any good thing. The truly converted Christian
comes to see his inability and knows that he does not make himself
eligible for heaven by his own good works and merits. He realizes that
he cannot move spiritually but as he is moved; that like the branches
of a tree, he can make no shoot, nor put forth leaves, nor bear fruit,
except as he receives sap from the root. Or, as Calvin says, “No man
makes himself a sheep, but is created such by divine grace.” The elect
hear the Gospel and believe–not always at the first hearing, but at
the divinely appointed time–the non-elect hear but disbelieve, not
because they lack sufficient evidence, but because their inward nature
is opposed to holiness. The reason for the two kinds of response is to
be traced to an external source. “A new heart also will I give you, and
a new spirit will I put within you; and I will make away the stony
heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh,” Ezek.
36:26. The “heart” in Biblical language includes the whole inner man.

Under the terms of the eternal covenant which was made between the
Father and the Son, Christ has been exalted to be the mediatorial Ruler
over the whole earth in order that He may direct the developing
kingdom. This is one of the rewards of His obedience and suffering. His
directing power is exerted through the agency of the Holy Spirit,
through whom His purchased redemption is applied to all for whom it was
intended and under the precise conditions of time and circumstance
predetermined in the covenant. We are told that it is by no ordinary
providence of God that a man believes but by the same mighty power that
was exerted when Christ was raised from the dead (Eph. 1:19, 20). As
certainly as it was effective in the resurrection of Christ it will be
effective when put forth in an individual, whether in a physical or a
spiritual resurrection.

The physical and the spiritual worlds are each the creation of God. In
the physical world the water is sovereignly changed into wine, and the
leper is healed by a touch. The Arminian readily admits God’s
miraculous power in the physical world; why, then, does he deny it in
the spiritual world, as if the spirits of men were beyond His control?
We believe that God can change a bad man into a good man when He
pleases. That is one form of authority which it is the right of the
Creator to exercise over the creature. It is one of the means by which
the world is governed; and when God sees that it is best for the
welfare of the individual and for the development of His kingdom to
thus work, it is not only permissible but right that He should do so.
The effect follows immediately upon the volition, as when He said, Let
there be light. “The Divine saving act,” says Mozley, “is the bestowal
of this irresistible grace. The subject of the Divine predetermination
is rescued by an act of absolute power from the dominion of sin,
dragged from it, as it were, by force, converted, filled with the love
of God and his neighbor, and qualified infallibly for a state of
ultimate reward.” [82]

As the physical eye once blinded cannot be restored to sight by any
amount or intensity of light falling upon it, so the soul dead in sin
cannot acquire spiritual vision by any amount of Gospel truth presented
to it. Unless the surgeon’s knife or a miracle restore the eye to its
normal condition, sight is impossible; and unless the soul be set right
through regeneration it will never comprehend and accept the Gospel
truth. In regeneration God bids the sinner live; and immediately he is
alive, filled with a new spiritual life. Lydia, the seller of purple in
the city of Thyatira, gave heed to the things which were spoken by
Paul, because the Lord had first opened her heart (Acts 16:14). Christ
taught this same truth when in His intercessory prayer He said
concerning Himself that God “gave Him authority over all flesh, that to
all whom thou hast given Him, He should give eternal life,” John 17:2;
and again, “For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life,
even so the Son also giveth life to whom He will,” John 5:21.

Under the covenant made with Adam, man’s destiny depended on his own
works. We know the results of that trial. Now if man could not work out
his salvation when he was upright, what chance has he to do so since he
is fallen? Happily for us, God has this time taken the matter into His
own hand. And if God again gave man free will by which to work out his
own salvation, what would He be doing but again instituting the
dispensation which has already been tried and which ended in failure?
Suppose a man is carried away by a torrent which he is unable to
master, would it be reasonable or wise to take him out only to recruit
his strength for a second trial? Would it not be a mockery to save him
only to repeat the process? Since God does not repeat His dispensations
it follows that the second time He would order salvation on a different
plan. If further works are to be wrought, then God, and not man, will
be the author; and the new dispensation, like the old, is adjusted to
the state in which it finds man.

We are very sure that no property does, or can, attach to the will of
man, whether fallen or unfallen, that can take it beyond the reach of
God’s sovereign control. Saul was called at the height of his
persecuting zeal and was transformed into the saintly Paul. The poor
dying thief on the cross was called in the last hour of his earthly
life. When Paul preached at Antioch “as many as were ordained to
eternal life (and only they) believed,” Acts 13:48. If God purposed
that all men should be saved He most certainly could bring all to
salvation. But for reasons which have been only partly revealed, He
leaves many impenitent. Through all of His works, however, God does
nothing which is inconsistent with man’s nature as a rational and
responsible being.

One of the great short-comings of Arminianism has been its failure to
recognize the necessity for the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit on
the heart. Instead, it has resolved regeneration into a more or less
gradual change which is carried out by the individual person, a mere
change of purpose in the sinner’s mind, which is a result of moral
persuasion and the general force of truth. It has insisted upon “free
will,” “the power of contrary choice,” etc., and has taught that
ultimately the sinner determines his own destiny. In its more
consistent forms it makes man a co-savior with Christ, as if the glory
in redemption was to be divided between the grace of Christ and the
will of man, the latter dividing the spoils with the former.

If, as Arminians say, God is earnestly trying to convert every person,
He is making a great failure of His work; for among the adult
population of the world up to the present time, where He has succeeded
in saving one He has let perhaps twenty-five fall into hell. Such a
view sheds little glory on the Divine Majesty. Concerning the Arminian
doctrine of resistible grace Toplady says that it is “a doctrine which
represents Omnipotence itself as wishing and trying and striving to no
purpose. According to this tenet, God, in endeavoring (for it seems
that it is only an endeavor) to convert sinners, may, by sinners, be
foiled, defeated, and disappointed; He may lay close and long siege to
the soul, and that soul can, from the citadel of impregnable free will,
hang out a flag of defiance to God Himself, and by a continued
obstinacy of defense, and a few vigorous sallies of free will compel
Him to raise the siege. In a word, the Holy Spirit, after having for
years perhaps, danced attendance on the free will of man, may at
length, like a discomfited general, or an unsuccessful politician, be
either put to ignominious night, or contemptuously dismissed,re
infecta, without accomplishing the end for which He was sent.”

It is unreasonable to suppose that the sinner can thus defeat the
creative power of Almighty God. “All authority hath been given to me in
heaven and on earth,” said the risen Lord. No limit is set to that
authority. “Is anything too hard for Jehovah?” “He doeth according to
His will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the
earth; and no one can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou?”
In view of these passages and many others to the same effect it ill
becomes us to imagine that God is struggling along with man as best He
can, persuading, exhorting, pleading, but unable to accomplish His
purpose if His creatures will otherwise. If God does not effectually
call, we may imagine Him saying, “I will that all men should be saved;
nevertheless, it must finally be, not as I will but as they will.” He
is then put into the same extremity with Darius who would gladly have
saved Daniel, but could not (Dan. 6:14). No Christian who is familiar
with what the Scriptures teach about the sovereignty of God can believe
that He is thus defeated in His creatures. Is it not necessary that a
creature must have power to defy and thwart the purposes of Almighty
God before his actions can be rewarded or punished. Furthermore, if God
actually stood powerless before the majesty of man’s lordly will, there
would be but little use to pray for Him to convert any one. It would
then be more reasonable for us to direct our petitions to the man
himself.

4. THE EFFECT PRODUCED IN THE SOUL

The immediate and important effect of this inward, purifying change of
nature is that the person loves righteousness and trusts in Christ for
salvation. Whereas his natural element was sin, it now becomes
holiness; sin becomes repulsive to him, and he loves to do good. This
effective and irresistible grace converts the will itself and forms a
holy character in the person by a creative act. It removes a man’s
appetite for sinful things so that he refrains from sin, not as the
dyspeptic refuses to eat the dainties for which he longs, lest his
indulgence should be punished with the agonies of sickness, but rather
because he hates sin for its own sake. The holy and thorough submission
to God’s will, which the convert before dreaded and resisted, he now
loves and approves. Obedience has become not only the obligatory but
the preferable good.

But so long as people remain in this world they are subject to
temptations and they still have the remnants of the old nature clinging
to them. Hence they are often deluded, and commit sin; Yet these sins
are only the death struggles and frenzied writhings of the old nature
which has already received the death blow. The regenerate also suffer
pain, disease, discouragement, and even death itself, although they are
steadily advancing toward complete salvation.

At this point many people confuse regeneration and sanctification.
Regeneration is exclusively God’s work, and it is an act of His free
grace in which He implants a new principle of spiritual life in the
soul. It is performed by supernatural power and is complete in an
instant. On the other hand sanctification is a process through which
the remains of sin in the outward life are gradually removed, so that,
as the Shorter Catechism says, we are enabled more and more to die unto
sin and to live unto righteousness. It is a joint work of God and man.
It consists in the gradual triumph of the new nature implanted in
regeneration over the evil that still remains after the heart has been
renewed. Or, in other words, we may say that complete sanctification
lags behind after the life has been in principle won to God. Perfect
righteousness is the goal which is set before us all through this life
and every Christian should make steady progress toward that goal.
Sanctification, however, is not fully completed until death, at which
time the Holy Spirit cleanses the soul of every vestige of sin, making
it holy and raising it above even the possibility of sinning.

Strictly speaking, we may say that redemption is not fully complete
until the saved have received their resurrection bodies. In one sense
it was complete when Christ died on Calvary; yet it is applied only
gradually by the Holy Spirit. And since the Holy Spirit does thus
effectually apply to the elect the merits of Christ’s sacrifice, their
salvation is most infallibly certain and can by no means be prevented.
Hence the certainty that the will of God for the salvation of his
people is in no wise disappointed or made void by His creatures.

5. THE SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST’S WORK–EVANGELICALISM

We now come to discuss the sufficiency of Christ’s work in the matter
of redemption. We believe that by His vicarious suffering and death He
fully paid the debt which His people owed to divine justice, thus
releasing them from the consequences of sin, and that by keeping the
law of perfect obedience and living a sinless life He vicariously
earned for them the reward of eternal life. His work fully provided for
their rescue from sin and for their establishment in heaven. These two
phases of His work are sometimes referred to as His active and passive
obedience. This doctrine of the sufficiency of His work is set forth in
the Westminster Confession when we are told that by His perfect
obedience and sacrifice of Himself He “fully satisfied the justice of
His Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting
inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father had
given Him.” [83] Had He only paid the penalty for sin without also
earning the reward of eternal life, His people would then only have
been raised up to the zero point. They would then have been on the same
plane as was Adam before he fell, and would still have been under
obligation to earn eternal life for themselves. To Paul’s declaration
that Christ is all in all in matters of salvation (Col. 3:11), we can
add that man is nothing at all as to that work, and has not in himself
anything which merits salvation.

Just here we can do no better than to quote the words of Dr. Warfield
spoken with special reference to I Tim. 1:15. “Jesus did all that is
included in the great word ‘save.’ He did not come to induce us to save
ourselves, or to help us to save ourselves, or to enable us to save
ourselves. He came to SAVE us. And it is, therefore, that His name was
called Jesus–because He should save His people from their sins. . . .
Nothing that we are and nothing that we can do enters in the slightest
measure into the ground of our acceptance with God. Jesus did it all.
And by doing it all He has become in the fullest and widest and deepest
sense the word can bear–our Saviour. For this end did He come into the
world–to SAVE sinners; and nothing short of the actual and complete
SAVING of sinners will satisfy the account of His work given from His
own lips and repeated from them by His apostles. It is in this great
fact, indeed, that there lies the whole essence of the gospel. For let
us never forget that the gospel is not good advice but good news. It
does not come to us to make known to us what we must do to earn
salvation, but proclaims to us what Jesus has done to save us. It is
salvation, a complete salvation, that is announced to us; and the
burden of its message is just the words of our text–that Christ Jesus
came into the world to SAVE sinners.” [84]

To doubt that any for whom Christ died will be saved, or that
righteousness will eventually triumph, is to doubt the sufficiency of
Jesus Christ for the work which He undertook in our behalf. On the
cross Jesus declared that He had finished the work of redemption which
the Father gave Him to do. But as Toplady remarks, “the person with
power to accept or reject as he pleases must say: ‘No, thou didst not
finish the work of redemption which was given thee to do; thou didst
indeed a part of it, but I myself must add something to it or the whole
of thy performance will stand for naught.’”

Only those views which ascribe to God all the power in the salvation of
sinners are consistently evangelical, for the word “evangelical” means
that it is God alone who saves. If faith and obedience must be added,
depending upon the independent choice of man, we no longer have
evangelicalism. Evangelicalism with a universal atonement leads to
universal salvation; and in so far as Arminianism holds that Christ
died for all men and that the Spirit strives to apply this redemption
to all men but that only some are saved, it is not evangelical.

We may further illustrate this principle of evangelicalism by supposing
a group of people who are stricken with a fatal disease. Then if a
doctor administers to them a medicine which is a certain cure, all who
get the medicine will recover. In the same manner, if the work of
Christ is effective, and if it is applied to all men by the Spirit, all
will be saved. Hence to become evangelical the Arminian must become a
universalist. Calvinism alone, which holds to evangelicalism with a
limited atonement and asserts that the work of Christ accomplishes what
it was intended to accomplish, is consistent with the facts of
Scripture and experience.

6. THE ARMINIAN VIEW OF UNIVERSAL GRACE

The universalistic note is always prominent in the Arminian system. A
typical example of this is seen in the assertion of Prof. Henry C.
Sheldon, who for a number of years was connected with Boston
University. Says he: “Our contention is for the universality of the
opportunity of salvation, as against an exclusive and unconditional
choice of individuals to eternal life.” [85] Here we notice not only
(1) the characteristic Arminian stress on universalism, but also (2)
the recognition that, in the final analysis, all that God does for the
salvation of men does not actually save anybody, but that it only opens
up a way of salvation so that men can save themselves–and then for all
practical purposes we are back on the plane of pure naturalism!

Perhaps the strongest assertion of the Arminian construction is to be
found in the creed of the Evangelical Union body, or so-called
Morisonians, the very purpose of which was to protest against
unconditional election. A summary of its “Three Universalities” is fond
in the creed thus: “The love of God the Father, in the gift and
sacrifice of Jesus to all men everywhere without distinction,
exception, or respect of persons; the love of God the Son, in the gift
and sacrifice of Himself as a true propitiation for the sins of the
whole world; the love of God the Spirit, in His personal and continuous
work applying to the souls of all men the provisions of divine grace”
[86]

Certainly, if God loves all men alike, and if Christ died for all men
alike, and the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of that redemption to
all men alike, one of two conclusions follows. (1) All men alike are
saved (which is contradicted by Scripture), or, (2) all that God does
for man does not save him, but leaves him to save himself! What then
becomes of our evangelicalism, which means that it is God alone who
saves sinners? If we assert that after God has done all His work it is
still left for man to “accept” or “not resist,” we give man veto power
over the work of Almighty God and salvation rests ultimately in the
hand of man. In this system no matter how great a proportion of the
work of salvation God may do, man is ultimately the deciding factor.
And the man who does come to salvation has some personal merit of his
own; he has some grounds to boast over those who are lost. He can point
the finger of scorn and say, “You had as good chance as I had. I
accepted and you rejected the offer. Therefore you deserve to suffer.”
How different is this from Paul’s declaration that it is “not of works,
that no man should glory,” and “He that glorieth, let him glory in the
Lord,” Eph. 2:9; I Cor. 1: 31.

The tendency in all these universalistic systems in which man proudly
seizes the helm and proclaims himself the master of his destiny is to
reduce Christianity to a religion of works. Luther had this very point
in mind when he satirically remarked concerning the moralists of his
day, “Here we are always wanting to urn the tables and do good of
ourselves to that poor man, our Lord God, from Whom we are rather to
receive it.”

Zanchius says that Arminianism gently whispers in the ear of man that
even in his fallen state he has “both the will and the power to do what
is good and acceptable to God:–that Christ’s death is accepted by God
as a universal atonement for all men; in order that every one may, if
he will, save himself by his own free will and good works:–that in the
exercise of our natural powers, we may arrive at perfection, even in
the present state of life. “The issue,” says Dr. Warfield, “is indeed a
fundamental one and it is clearly drawn. Is it God the Lord who saves
us, or is it we ourselves? And does God the Lord save us, or does He
merely open up the way of salvation, and leave it, according to our
choice, to walk in it or not? The parting of the ways is the old
parting of the ways between Christianity and autosoterism. Certainly
only he can claim to be evangelical who with full consciousness rests
entirely and directly on God and on God alone for his salvation.” [87]

“Not the labors of my hands

Can fulfill Thy law’s commands;

Could my zeal no respite know,

Could my tears forever flow,

All for sin could not atone–

Thou must save, and Thou alone.

“Nothing in my hands I bring–

Simply to Thy cross I cling;

Naked come to Thee for dress–

Helpless look to Thee for grace;

Foul, I to thy fountain fly–

Wash me, Saviour, or I die!”

7. NO VIOLATION OF MAN’S FREE AGENCY

It is a common thing for opponents to represent this doctrine as
implying that men are forced to believe and turn to God against their
wills, or, that it reduces men to the level of machines in the matter
of salvation. This is a misrepresentation. Calvinists hold no such
opinion, and in fact the full statement of the doctrine excludes or
contradicts it. The Westminster Confession, after stating that this
efficacious grace which results in conversion is an exercise of
omnipotence and cannot be defeated, adds, “Yet so as they come most
freely, being made willing by His grace.” The power by which the work
of regeneration is effected is not of an outward and compelling nature.
Regeneration does no more violence to the soul than demonstration does
to the intellect, or persuasion the heart. Man is not dealt with as if
he were a stone or a log. Neither is he treated as a slave, and driven
against his own will to seek salvation. Rather the mind is illuminated,
and the entire range of conceptions with regard to God, self, and sin,
is changed. God sends His Spirit and, in a way which shall forever
rebound to the praise of His mercy and grace, sweetly constrains the
person to yield. The regenerated man finds himself governed by new
motives and desires, and things which were once hated are now loved and
sought after. This change is not accomplished through any external
compulsion but through a new principle of life which has been created
within the soul and which seeks after the food which alone can satisfy
it.

The spiritual law, like the civil law, is “not a terror to the good
work, but to the evil”; and we find a good analogy for this in human
affairs. Compare the law abiding citizen and the criminal. The
law-abiding citizen goes about his affairs day after day unconscious of
most of the laws of the state and nation in which he lives. He looks to
the government officials and to the police as his friends. They
represent constituted authority which he respects and in which he
delights. He is a free man. For him the law exists only as the
protector of his life, his loved ones, and his property. But when we
took at the criminal the whole picture is changed. He probably knows
more about the statutes than does the law-abiding man. He studies them
in order that he may evade them and defeat their purpose. He lives in
fear. He defends his secret room with bullet-proof doors, and carries a
revolver for fear of what the police or other people may do to him. He
is under a constant bondage. His idea of liberty is to eliminate the
police, corrupt the courts, and bring into general disrepute the laws
and customs of society on which he tries to prey.

All of us have had experiences in our every day lives in which we
refuse to do certain things, but upon the introduction of new factors
we have changed our minds and have freely and gladly done what we
before opposed. Certainly there is nothing in this doctrine to warrant
the representation that, upon Calvinistic principles, men are forced to
repent and believe whether or not they choose to do so.

But some may ask, Do not the many passages in the Bible such as, “If
thou shalt obey,” “If thou turn unto Jehovah,” “If thou do that which
is evil,” and so forth, at least imply that man has free will and
ability? It does not follow, however, that merely because God commands
man is able to obey. Oftentimes parents play with their children in
telling them to do this or that when their very purpose is to show them
their inability and to induce them to ask for the parents’ help. When
men of the world hear such language they assume that they have
sufficient power in themselves, and, like the self-conceited lawyer to
whom Jesus said, “This do, and thou shalt live,” they go away believing
that they are able to earn salvation by good works. But when the truly
spiritual man hears such language he is led to see that he cannot
fulfill the commandment, and so cries out to the Father to do the work
for him. In these passages man is taught not what he can do, but what
he ought to do; and woe to the one who is so blind that he cannot see
this truth, for until he does see it he can never adequately appreciate
the work of Christ. In answer to the despairing sinner’s cry the
Scriptures reveal a salvation which is all of grace, the free gift of
God’s love and mercy in Christ. And the one who sees himself thus saved
by grace instinctively cries out with David, “Who am I, O Lord Jehovah,
and what is my house, that thou hast brought me thus far?”

The special grace which we refer to as efficacious is sometimes called
irresistible grace. This latter term, however, is somewhat misleading
since it does suggest that a certain overwhelming power is exerted upon
the person, in consequence of which he is compelled to act contrary to
his desires, whereas the meaning intended, as we have stated before, is
that the elect are so influenced by divine power that their coming is
an act of voluntary choice.

8. COMMON GRACE

Apart from this special grace which issues in the salvation of its
objects, there is what we may call “common grace,” or general
influences of the Holy Spirit which to a greater or lesser degree are
shared by all men. God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good,
and sends rain upon the just and the unjust. He sends fruitful seasons
and gives many things which make for the general happiness of mankind.
Among the most common blessings which are to be traced to this source
we may name health, material prosperity, general intelligence, talents
for art, music, oratory, literature, architecture, commerce,
inventions, etc. In many instances the non-elect receive these
blessings in greater abundance than do the elect, for we often find
that the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the
sons of light. Common grace is the source of all the order, refinement,
culture, common virtue, etc., which we find in the world, and through
it the moral power of the truth upon the heart and conscience is
increased and the evil passions of men are restrained. It does not lead
to salvation, but it keeps this earth from becoming a hell. It arrests
the complete effectuation of sin, just as human insight arrests the
fury of wild beasts. It prevents sin from being manifested in all its
hideousness, and thus hinders the bursting forth of the flames from the
smoking fire. Like the pressure of the atmosphere, it is universal and
powerful though unfelt.

Common grace, however, does not kill the core of sin, and therefore it
is not capable of producing a genuine conversion. Through the light of
nature, the workings of conscience, and especially through the external
presentation of the Gospel it makes known to man what he should do, but
does not give that power which man stands in need of. Furthermore, all
of these common influences of the Holy Spirit are capable of being
resisted. The Scriptures constantly teach that the Gospel becomes
effectual only when it is attended by the special illuminating power of
the Spirit, and that without this power it is to the Jews a stumbling
block and to the Gentiles foolishness. Hence the unregenerate man can
never know God except in an outward way; and for this reason the
external righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is declared to be
just no righteousness at all. Jesus said to His disciples that the
world could not receive the Spirit of truth, “for it beholdeth Him not,
neither knoweth Him;” yet in the same breath He added, “Ye know Him;
for He abideth with you, and shall be in you,” John 14:17. The Arminian
doctrine destroys the distinction between efficacious and common grace,
or at best makes efficacious grace to be an assistance without which
salvation is impossible, while the Calvinistic makes it to be an
assistance by which salvation is made certain.

Concerning the reformations which are produced by common grace Dr.
Charles Hodge says:–”lt not infrequently happens that men who have
been immoral in their lives change their whole course of living. They
become outwardly correct in their deportment, temperate, pure, honest,
and benevolent. This is a great and praiseworthy change. It is in a
high degree beneficial to the subject of it, and to all with whom he is
connected. It may be produced by different causes, by the force of
conscience, or by a regard for the authority of God and a dread of His
disapprobation, or by a regard to the good opinion of men, or by the
mere force of an enlightened regard to one’s own interest. But whatever
may be the proximate cause of such reformation, it falls very far short
of sanctification. The two things differ in nature as much as a clean
heart from clean clothes. Such external reformation may leave a man’s
inward character in the sight of God unchanged. He may remain destitute
of love to God, of faith in Christ, and of all holy exercises or
affections.” [88] And says Dr. Hewlitt: “Can the corpse in the
graveyard be aroused by the sweetest music that ever has been invented,
or by the loudest thunder which seems to shake the poles? Just as soon
shall the sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, be moved by the thunder
of the law, or by the melody of the Gospel; can the Ethiopian change
his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good that are
accustomed to do evil (Jer. 13:23).” [89]

The following paragraph by Dr. S. G. Craig very clearly sets forth the
limitations of common grace:–”Christianity realizes that education and
culture, that leaves Jesus Christ out of consideration, while they may
make men clever, polished, brilliant, have no power to change their
characters. At the most these things of themselves only cleanse the
outside of the cup; they do not affect the nature of its contents.
Those who place their confidence in education, culture and such like
assume that all that is needed to change the wild olive tree into a
good olive tree is pruning, spraying, cultivation and such like,
whereas what the tree needs first of all, is that it be grafted with a
scion from a good olive tree. And until this is done all labor that is
spent on the tree is for the most part wasted. We do not underestimate
the value of education and culture, and yet one might as well suppose
that he could purify the waters of a river by improving the scenery
along the banks as suppose that these things of themselves are capable
of transforming the hearts of the children of men. . . . As an old
Jewish proverb has it: ‘Take the bitter tree and plant it in the garden
of Eden and water it with the waters there; and let the angel Gabriel
be the gardener and the tree will still bear bitter fruit.’” [90]
__________________________________________________________________

[78] Chapter X, Section 1 and 2.

[79] Question 31.

[80] Systematic Theology, II, p. 688.

[81] Systematic Theology, II, p. 35.

[82] The Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, p. 8.

[83] Chapter VIII, Sect. 5.

[84] The Power of God Unto Salvation, p. 48-50.

[85] System of Christian Doctrine, p. 417.

[86] The Religious Controversies of Scotland, p. 187.

[87] The Plan of Salvation, p. 108.

[88] Systematic Theology, III, p. 214.

[89] Sound Doctrine, p. 21.

[90] Jesus as He Was and Is, p. 191, 199.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIV

The Perseverance of the Saints

Statement of the Doctrine. 2. Perseverance Does Not Depend Upon the
Person’s Good Works But Upon God’s Grace. 3. Though Truly Saved the
Christian May Temporarily Backslide and Commit Sin. 4. An Outward
Profession of Righteousness Not a Guarantee That the Person Is a True
Christian. 5. Arminian Sense of Insecurity. 6. Purpose of the Scripture
Warnings Against Apostasy. 7. Scripture Proof.

1. STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE

The doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is stated in the
Westminster Confession in the following words: “They whom God hath
accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His
Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of
grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be
eternally saved.” [91]

This doctrine does not stand alone but is a necessary part of the
Calvinistic system of theology. The doctrines of Election and
Efficacious Grace logically imply the certain salvation of those who
receive these blessings. If God has chosen men absolutely and
unconditionally to eternal life, and if His Spirit effectively applies
to them the benefits of redemption, the inescapable conclusion is that
these persons shall be saved. And, historically, this doctrine has been
held by all Calvinists, and denied by practically all Arminians.

Those who have fled to Jesus for refuge have a firm foundation upon
which to build. Though floods of error deluge the land, though Satan
raise all the powers of earth and all the iniquities of their own
hearts against them, they shall never fail; but, persevering to the
end, they shall inherit those mansions which have been prepared for
them from the foundation of the world. The saints in heaven are happier
but no more secure than are true believers here in this world. Since
faith and repentance are gifts of God, the bestowing of these gifts is
a revelation of God’s purpose to save those to whom they are given. It
is an evidence that God has predestinated the recipients of these gifts
to be conformed to the image of His Son, i.e., to be like Him in
character, destiny, and glory, and that He will infallibly carry out
His purpose. No one can pluck them out of His hands. Those who once
become true Christians have within themselves the principle of eternal
life, which principle is the Holy Spirit; and since the Holy Spirit
dwells within them they are already potentially holy. True, they are
still exercised by many trials, and they do not yet see what they shall
be, but they should know that that which is begun in them shall be
completed to the end, and that the very presence of strife within them
is the sign of life and the promise of victory.

Furthermore, let our opponents inform us why it is that in regard to
those who become true Christians, but who, as they allege, fall away,
God does not take them out of the world while they are in the saved
state. Surely no one will have the perversity to say that it was
because He could not, or because He did not foresee their future
apostasy. Why, then, does He leave these objects of His affection here
to fall back into sin and to perish? His gift of continued life to
those Christians amounts to an infinite curse placed upon them. Who
really believe that the heavenly Father takes no better care of His
children than that? This stupid heresy of the Arminians teaches that a
person may be a son of God today and a son of the Devil tomorrow, that
he may change from one state to another as rapidly as he changes his
mind. It teaches that he may be born of the Spirit, justified and
sanctified, all but glorified, and yet, that he may become reprobate
and perish eternally, his own will and course of conduct being the
determining factor. Certainly this is deseperate doctrine. There is
scarcely an error more absurd that that which supposes that a sovereign
God would permit his children to defeat His love and fall away.

In addition to this, if God knows that a certain Christian is going to
rebel and perish, can He love him with any deep affection even before
his apostasy? If we knew that some one who is our friend today would be
led to become our enemy and betray us tomorrow, we could not receive
him with the intimacy and trust which otherwise would be natural. Our
knowledge of his future acts would in large measure destroy our present
love for him.

No one denies that the redeemed in heaven will be preserved in
holiness. Yet if God is able to preserve His saints in heaven without
violating their free agency, may He not also preserve His saints on
earth without violating their free agency?

The nature of the change which occurs in regeneration is a sufficient
guarantee that the life imparted shall be permanent. Regeneration is a
radical and supernatural change of the inner nature, through which the
soul is made spiritually alive, and the new life which is implanted is
immortal. And since it is a change in the inner nature, it is in a
sphere in which man does not have control. No creature is at liberty to
change the fundamental principles of its nature, for that is the
prerogative of God as Creator. Hence nothing short of another
supernatural act of God could reverse this change and cause the new
life to be lost. The born-again Christian can no more lose his sonship
to the heavenly Father than an earthly son can lose his sonship to an
earthly father. The idea that a Christian may fall away and perish
arises from a wrong conception of the principle of spiritual life which
is imparted to the soul in regeneration.

2. OUR PERSEVERANCE NOT DEPENDENT ON OUR OWN GOOD WORKS BUT ON GOD’S GRACE

Paul teaches that believers are not under law, but under grace, and
that since they are not under the law they cannot be condemned for
having violated the law. “Ye are not under law but under grace,” Rom.
6:14. Further sin cannot possibly cause their downfall, for they are
under a system of grace and are not treated according to their deserts.
“If it is by grace, it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more
grace,” Rom. 11:6. “The law worketh wrath; but where there is no law,
neither is there transgression,” Rom. 4:15. “Apart from the law sin is
dead” (that is, where the law is abolished sin can no longer subject
the person to punishment), Rom. 7:8. “Ye were made dead to the law
through the body of Christ,” Rom. 7:4. The one who attempts to earn
even the smallest part of his salvation by works becomes “a debtor to
do the whole law” (that is, to render perfect obedience in his own
strength and thus earn his salvation), Gale 6:3. We are here dealing
with two radically different systems of salvation, two systems which,
in fact, are diametrically opposed to each other.

The infinite, mysterious, eternal love of God for His people is a
guarantee that they can never be lost. This love is not subject to
fluctuations but is as unchangeable as His being. It is also
gratuitous, and keeps faster hold of us than we of it. It is not
founded on the attractiveness of its objects. “Herein is love, not that
we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the
propitiation for our sins,” I John 4:10. “God commendeth His own love
toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much
more then, being now justified by His blood, shall we be saved from the
wrath of God through Him. For if, while we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being
reconciled, shall we be saved by His life,” Rom. 5:8-10. Here the very
point stressed in that our standing with God is not based on our
deserts. It was “while we were enemies” that we were brought into
spiritual life through sovereign grace; and if He has done the greater,
will He not do the lesser? The writer of the book of Hebrews also
teaches that it is impossible for one of God’s chosen to be lost when
he says that Christ is both “the Author and Perfecter of our faith.” We
are there taught that the whole course of our salvation is divinely,
planned and divinely guided. Neither the grace of God nor its
continuance is given according to our merits. Hence if any Christian
fell away, it would be because God had withdrawn His grace and changed
His method of procedure–or, in other words, because He had put the
person back under a system of law.

Robert L. Dabney has expressed this truth very ably In the following
paragraph: “The sovereign and unmerited love is the cause of the
believer’s effectual calling. Jer. 33:3; Rom. 8:30. Now, as the cause
is unchangeable, the effect is unchangeable. That effect is, the
constant communication of grace to the believer in whom God hath begun
a good work. God was not induced to bestow His renewing grace in the
first instance, by anything which He saw, meritorious or attractive, in
the repenting sinner; and therefore the subsequent absence of
everything good in him would be no new motive to God for withdrawing
His grace. When He first bestowed that grace, He knew that the sinner
on whom He bestowed it was totally depraved, and wholly and only
hateful in himself to the divine holiness; and therefore no new
instance of ingratitude or unfaithfulness, of which the sinner may
become guilty after his conversion, can be any provocation to God, to
change His mind, and wholly withdraw His sustaining grace. God knew all
this ingratitude before. He will chastise it, by temporarily
withdrawing His Holy Spirit, or His providential mercies; but if He had
not intended from the first to bear with it, and to forgive it in
Christ, He would not have called the sinner by His grace at first. In a
word, the causes for which God determined to bestow His electing love
on the sinner are wholly in God, and not at all in the believer; and
hence, nothing in the believer’s heart or conduct can finally change
that purpose of love. Is. 54:10; Rom. 11:29. Compare carefully Rom.
5:8-10; 8:32, with the whole scope of Rom. 8:28-end. This illustrious
passage is but an argument for our proposition; ‘What shall separate us
from the love of Christ?’” [92]

“God’s love in this respect,” says Dr. Charles Hodge “is compared to
parental love. A mother does not love her child because it is lovely.
Her love leads her to do all she can to render it attractive and to
keep it so. So the love of God, being in like manner mysterious,
unaccountable by anything in its objects, secures His adorning His
children with the graces of His Spirit, and arraying them in all the
beauty of holiness. It is only the lamentable mistake that God loves us
for our goodness, that can lead any one to suppose that His love is
dependent on our self-sustained attractiveness.” [93]

Concerning the salvation of the elect, Luther says, “God’s decree of
predestination is firm and certain; and the necessity resulting from it
is, in like manner, immovable, and cannot but take place. For we
ourselves are so feeble, that if the matter were left in our hands,
very few, or rather none, would be saved; but Satan would overcome us
all.”

The more we think of these matters, the more thankful we are that our
perseverance in holiness and assurance of salvation is not dependent on
our own weak nature, but upon God’s constant sustaining power. We can
say with Isaiah, “Except Jehovah of hosts had left us a very small
remnant, we should have become as Sodom, we should have been like unto
Gomorrah.” Arminianism denies this doctrine of Perseverance, because it
is a system, not of pure grace, but of grace and works; and in any such
system the person must prove himself at least partially worthy.

3. THOUGH TRULY SAVED THE CHRISTIAN MAY TEMPORARILY BACKSLIDE AND COMMIT SIN

This doctrine of Perseverance does not mean that Christians do not
temporarily fall the victims of sin, for alas, this is all too common.
Even the best of men backslide temporarily. But they are never
completely defeated; for God, by the exercise of His grace on their
hearts infallibly prevents even the weakest saint from final apostasy.
As yet we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding
greatness of the power (or the glory) may be of God, and not from
ourselves (II Cor. 4:7).

Concerning his own personal experience even the great apostle Paul
could write: “The good which I would I do not; but the evil which I
would not, that I practice. But if what I would not, that I do, it is
no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. . . . I find then
the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present. For I delight
in the law of God after the inward man; but I see a different law in my
members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into
captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man
that I am I who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? I thank
God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind,
indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” Rom.
7:19-25. In these lines every true Christian reads his own experience.

It is, of course, inconsistent for the Christian to commit sin, and the
writer of the book of Hebrews says that those who do sin “crucify to
themselves the Son of God afresh and put Him to an open shame” (6:6).
After David had committed sin and had repented he was told by the
prophet Nathan that his sin would be forgiven, but that nevertheless
through it he had “given great occasion to the enemies of Israel to
blaspheme,” II Sam. 12:14. David and Peter fell away temporarily, but
the basic principles of their natures called them back. Judas fell away
permanently because he lacked those basic principles.

As long as the believer remains in this world his state is one of
warfare. He suffers temporary reverses and may for a time appear to
have lost all faith; yet if he has been once truly saved, he cannot
fall away completely from grace. If once he has experienced the inner
change which comes through regeneration he will sooner or later return
to the fold and be saved. When he comes to himself he confesses his
sins and asks forgiveness, never doubting that he is saved. His lapse
into sin may have injured him severely and may have brought destruction
to others; but so far as he is personally concerned it is only
temporary. Paul taught that the life work of many people should be
burned since it is constructed of wrong materials, though they
themselves shall be saved “so as by fire,” I Cor. 3:12-15; and it was
this teaching which Jesus brought out in the parable of the lost sheep
which the shepherd sought and brought back to the fold.

If true believers fell away, then their bodies, which are called
“temples of the Holy Spirit,” would become the habitations of the
Devil, which of course would make the Devil rejoice and insult over God
(I Cor. 6:19). “The Christian is like a man making his way up hill, who
occasionally slips back, yet always has his face set toward the summit.
The unregenerate man has his face turned downwards, and he is slipping
all the way,”–A. H. Strong. “The believer, like a man on shipboard,
may fall again and again on the deck, but he will never fall
overboard.”–C. H. Spurgeon.

Each one of the elect is like the prodigal son in this, that for a time
he is deluded by the world and is led astray by his own carnal
appetite. He tries to feed on the husks, but they do not satisfy. And
sooner or later he is obliged to say, “I will arise and go to my
father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven,
and in thy sight.” And he meets with the same reception, tokens of
unchanging love; and a father’s welcome voice echoes through the soul,
and melts the heart of the poor returning backslider,–”This my son was
dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” Let it be
noticed that this is a thoroughly Calvinistic parable in that the
prodigal was a son, and could not lose that relationship. Those who are
not sons never have the desire to arise and go to the Father.

Our judgments may at times be wrong, as was that of the bewitched
Galatians (3:1); and our affections may cool, as in the Ephesian Church
(Rev. 2:4). The Church may become drowsy, yet her heart awakes (Song
5:3). Grace may at times seem to be lost to a child of God when it is
indeed not so. The sun is eclipsed, but regains its former splendor.
The trees lose all their leaves and fruit in winter, but has fresh
buddings with the spring. Israel flees once, or even twice, before her
enemies, and yet they conquer the land of promise. The Christian, too,
falls many times, but is finally saved. It is unthinkable that God’s
elect should fail of salvation. “There is no possibility of their
escaping the omnipotent power of God. so that, like Jonah, who fled
from the will of God, which was to carry the message to Nineveh, yet
was pursued even into the belly of the fish by the power of God until
he willingly obeyed God’s command, so they will eventually return to
the Saviour, and after confession receive pardon for their sins and be
saved.” [94]

4. AN OUTWARD PROFESSION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS NOT ALWAYS A PROOF THAT THE PERSON
IS A TRUE CHRISTIAN

We have no great difficulty in disposing of those cases where
apparently true believers have gone into final apostasy. Both Scripture
and experience teach us that we are often mistaken in our judgment of
our fellow men, that sometimes it is practically impossible for us to
know for certain that they are true Christians. The tares were never
wheat, and the bad fish were never good, in spite of the fact that
their true nature was not at first recognized. Since Satan can so alter
his appearance that he is mistaken for an angel of light (II Cor.
11:14), it is no marvel that sometimes his ministers also fashion
themselves as doers of righteousness, with the most deceptive
appearances of holiness, devotion, piety and zeal. Certainly an outward
profession is not always a guarantee that the soul is saved. Like the
Pharisees of old, they may only desire to “make a fair show in the
flesh,” and deceive many. Jesus warned His disciples, “there shall
arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and
wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect,” Matt.
24:24; and He quoted the prophet Isaiah to the effect that, “This
people honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But
in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of
men,” Mark 7:6, 7. Paul warned against those who were “false apostles,
deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ,” II
Cor. 11:13. And to the Romans he wrote, “They are not all Israel, that
are of Israel: neither, because they are Abraham’s seed are they all
children,” Rom. 9:6, 7. John mentions those who “call themselves
apostles, and they are not,” Rev. 2:2; and a little later he adds, “I
know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art
dead,” Rev. 3:1.

But however effectively these may deceive men, God all the time knows
“the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but
are a synagogue of Satan,” Rev. 2:9. We live in a day when multitudes
claim the name of “Christian,” who are destitute of Christian
knowledge, experience, and character,–in a day when, in many quarters,
the distinction between the Church and the world has been wiped out.
Like Samuel, we are often deceived by the outward appearance, and say,
“Surely the Lord’s anointed is before us,” when if we really knew the
motives behind their works we would conclude otherwise. We are often
mistaken in our judgment of others, in spite of the best precautions
that we can take. John gave the true solution for these cases when he
wrote: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had
been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that
they might be made manifest that they all are not of us,” I John 2:19.
All of those who fall away permanently come under this class.

Some persons make a great profession of religion although they know
nothing of the Lord Jesus in sincerity and in truth. These persons may
outstrip many a humble follower in head-knowledge, and for a season
they may quite deceive the very elect; yet all the time their hearts
have never been touched. In the judgment day many of those who at some
time in their lives have been externally associated with the Church
will say, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name
cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?” And then He
will reply to them, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work
iniquity,” Matt. 7:22, 23; which, of course, would not be true if at
some time He had known them as real Christians. When every man shall
appear in his own colors, when the secrets of all hearts shall be
manifest, many who at times appeared to be true Christians will be seen
never to have been among God’s people. Some fall away from a profession
of faith, but none fall away from the saving grace of God. Those who do
fall have never known the latter. They are the stony-ground hearers,
who have no root in themselves, but who endure for a while; and when
tribulation or persecution arises, straightway they stumble. They are
then said to have given up or to have made shipwreck of that faith
which they never possessed except in appearance. Some of these become
sufficiently enlightened in the scheme of the doctrines of the Gospel
that they are able to preach or to teach them to others, and yet are
themselves entirely destitute of real saving grace. When such fall away
they are no proofs nor instances of the final apostasy of real saints.

Mere church membership, of course, is no guarantee that the persons are
real Christians. Not every member of the Church militant will be a
member of the Church triumphant. To answer certain purposes, they make
an outward profession of the Gospel, which obliges them for a time to
be outwardly moral and to associate themselves with the people of God.
They appear to have true faith and continue thus for a while. Then
either their sheep’s clothing is stripped off, or they throw it off
themselves, and return again to the world. If we could see the real
motives of their hearts, we would discover that at no time were they
ever actuated by a true love of God. They were all this while goats,
and not sheep, ravening wolves, and not gentle lambs. Hence Peter says
of them, “It has happened unto them according to the true proverb, The
dog turning to his own vomit again, and the sow that had been washed to
wallowing in the mire,” II Peter 2:22. They thereby show that they
never belonged to the number of the elect.

Many of the unconverted listen to the preaching of the Gospel as Herod
listened to John the Baptist. We are told that “Herod feared John,
knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. And
when he heard him he was much perplexed; and he heard him gladly,” Mark
6:20. Yet no one who knows of Herod’s decree to put John the Baptist to
death, and of his life in general, will say that be was ever a
Christian.

In addition to what has been said it is to be admitted that often times
the common operations of the Spirit on the enlightened conscience lead
to reformation and to an externally religious life. Those so influenced
are often very strict in their conduct and diligent in their religious
duties. To the awakened sinner the promises of the Gospel and the
exhibition of the plan of salvation contained in the Scriptures appear
not only as true but as suited to his condition. He receives them with
joy, and believes with a faith founded on the moral force of truth.
This faith continues as long as the state of mind by which it is
produced continues. When that changes, he relapses into his usual state
of insensibility, and his faith disappears. It is to this class of
persons that Christ referred when He spoke of those who receive the
Word in stony places or among thorns. Numerous examples of this
temporary faith are found in the Scriptures and are often seen in every
day life. These experiences often precede or accompany genuine
conversion; but in many cases they are not followed by a real change of
heart. They may occur repeatedly, and yet those who experience them
return to their normal state of unconcern and worldliness. Often times
it is impossible for an observer or even the person himself to
distinguish these experiences from those of the truly regenerated. “By
their fruits ye shall know them,” is the test given by our Lord. Only
when these experiences issue in a consistently holy life can their
distinctive character be known.

5. ARMINIAN SENSE OF INSECURITY

A consistent Arminian, with his doctrines of free will and of falling
from grace, can never in this life be certain of his eternal salvation.
He may, indeed, have the assurance of his present salvation, but he can
have only a hope of his final salvation. He may regard his final
salvation as highly probable, but he cannot know it as a certainty. He
has seen many of his fellow Christians backslide and perish after
making a good start. Why may not he do the same thing? So long as men
remain in this world they have the remnants of the old sinful nature
clinging to them; they are surrounded by the most alluring and
deceptive pleasures of the world and the most subtle temptations of the
Devil. In many of the supposedly Christian churches they hear the false
teaching of modernistic, and therefore unchristian, ministers. If
Arminianism were true, Christians would still be in very dangerous
positions, with their eternal destiny suspended upon the probability
that their weak, creaturely wills would continue to choose right.
Furthermore, Arminianism would logically hold that no confirmation in
holiness is possible, not even in heaven; for even there the person
would still retain his free will and might commit sin any time he
chose.

By comparison the Arminian is like the person who has inherited a
fortune of, say, $100,000. He knows that many others who have inherited
such fortunes have lost them through poor judgment, fraud, calamity,
etc., but he has enough confidence in his own ability to handle money
wisely that he does not doubt but that he will keep his. His assurance
is based largely on self-confidence. Others have failed, but he is
confident that he will not fail. But what a delusion is this when
applied to the spiritual realm! What a pity that any one who is at all
acquainted with his own tendency to sin should base his assurance of
salvation upon such grounds! His system places the cause of his
perseverance, not in the hands of an all-powerful, never-changing God,
but in the hands of weak sinful man.

And does not the logic of the Arminian system tell us that the wise
thing for the Christian to do is to die as soon as possible and thus
confirm the inheritance which to him is of infinite value? In view of
the fact that so many have fallen away, is it worth while for him to
remain here and risk his eternal salvation for the sake of a little
more life in this world? What would be thought of a business man who,
in order to gain a few more dollars, would risk his entire fortune in
some admittedly questionable venture? In fact, does it not at least
suggest that the Lord has made many mistakes in not removing these
people while they were true Christians? The writer, at least, is
convinced that if he held the Arminian view and knew himself to be a
saved Christian he would want to die as soon as possible and thus place
his salvation beyond all possible doubt.

In regard to spiritual matters, a state of doubt is a state of misery.
The assurance that Christians can never be separated from the love of
God is one of the greatest comforts of the Christian life. To deny this
doctrine is to destroy the grounds for any rejoicing among the saints
on earth; for what kind of rejoicing can those have who believe that
they may at any time be deceived and led astray? If our sense of
security is based only on our changeable and wavering natures, we can
never know the inward calm and peace which, should characterize the
Christian. Says McFetridge, in his very illuminating little book,
Calvinism In History, “I can well conceive of the terror to a sensitive
soul of dark uncertainty as to salvation, and of that ever-abiding
consciousness of the awful possibility of falling away from grace after
a long and painful Christian life, which is taught by Arminianism. To
me such a doctrine has terrors which would cause me to shrink away from
it for ever, and which would fill me with constant and unspeakable
perplexities. To feel that I were crossing the troubled and dangerous
sea of life dependent for my final security upon the actings of my own
treacherous nature were enough to fill me with a perpetual alarm. If it
is possible, I want to know that the vessel to which I commit my life
is seaworthy, and that, having once embarked, I shall arrive in safety
at my destination.” (P. 112.)

It is not until we duly appreciate this wonderful truth, that our
salvation is not suspended on our weak and wavering love to God, but
rather upon His eternal and unchangeable love to us, that we can have
peace and certainty in the Christian life. And only the Calvinist, who
knows himself to be absolutely safe in the hands of God, can have that
inward sense of peace and security, knowing that in the eternal
counsels of God he has been chosen to be cleansed and glorified and
that nothing can thwart that purpose. He knows himself to be held to
righteousness by a spiritual power which is as exhaustless and
unvarying as the force of gravitation, and as necessary to the
development of the spirit as sunshine and vitamins are to the body.

6. PURPOSE OF THE SCRIPTURE WARNINGS AGAINST APOSTASY

Arminians sometimes bring forth from the Scriptures the warnings
against apostasy or falling away, which are addressed to believers, and
which, it is argued, imply a possibility of their failing away. There
is, of course, a sense in which it is possible for believers to fail
away,—when they are viewed simply in themselves, with reference to
their own powers and capacities, and apart from God’s purpose or design
with respect to them. And it is admitted by all that believers can fall
into sin temporarily. The primary purpose of these passages, however,
is to induce men to co-operate willingly with God for the
accomplishment of His purposes. They are inducements which produce
constant humility, watchfulness, and diligence. In the same way a
parent, in order to get the willing co-operation of a child, may tell
it to stay out of the way of an approaching automobile, when all the
time the parent has no intention of ever letting the child get into a
position where it would be injured. When God plies a soul with fears of
falling it is by no means a proof that God in His secret purpose
intends to permit him to fall. These fears may be the very means which
God has designed to keep him from falling. Secondly, God’s exhortations
to duty are perfectly consistent with His purpose to give sufficient
grace for the performance of these duties. In one place we are
commanded to love the Lord our God with all our heart; in another, God
says, “I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes.” Now either these must be consistent with each other, or the
Holy Spirit must contradict Himself. Plainly it is not the latter.
Thirdly, these warnings are, even for believers, incitements to greater
faith and prayer. Fourthly, they are designed to show man his duty
rather than his ability, and his weakness rather than his strength.
Fifthly, they convince men of their want of holiness and of their
dependence upon God. And, sixthly, they serve as restraints on
unbelievers, and leave them without excuse.

Nor is any more proven by the passages, “Destroy not with thy meat him
for whom Christ died,” Rom. 14:15; and, “For through thy knowledge he
that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died,” I Cor.
8:11. In the same manner the influence of a particular person, when
looked at merely in itself, might be said to be destroying our American
civilization; yet America goes ahead and prospers, because other
influences more than offset that one. In these passages the principle
asserted is simply this: Whatever their divine security, the
responsibility of the one who casts a stumbling block in the path of
his brother is not decreased; and that anyone who does cast a stumbling
block in the way of his brother is doing all he can towards his
brother’ destruction.

7. SCRIPTURE PROOF

The Scripture proof for this doctrine is abundant and clear. We shall
now consider some of these passages.

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or
anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness or peril, or sword?
Nay, In all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that
loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels,
nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,”
Rom. 8:35-39.

“Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but
under grace,” Rom. 6:14. “He that believeth hath eternal life,” John
6:47. “He that heareth my word, and believeth Him that sent me, hath
eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of
death into life,” John 5:24. The moment one believes, eternal life
becomes a reality, a present possession, and not merely a conditional
gift of the future. “I am the living bread which came down out of
heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever,” John
6:51. He does not say that we have to eat many times, but that if we
eat at all, we shall live for ever. “Whosoever drinketh of the water
that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall
give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal
life,” John 4:14.

“Being confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in
you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ,” Phil. 1:6. “Jehovah
will perfect that which concerneth me,” Ps. 138:8. “The gifts and
calling of God are not repented of:” Rom. 11:29. “The witness is this,
that God gave unto us eternal life,” I John 5:11. “These things have I
written unto you that ye may know that ye have eternal life,” I John
5:13. “For by one offering He bath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified,” Heb. 10:14. “The Lord will deliver me from every evil
work, and will save me unto His heavenly kingdom,” II Tim. 4:18. “For
whom He foreknew, He also foreordained. . . . and whom He foreordained,
them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and
whom He justified, them He also glorified,” Rom. 8:29. “Having
foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto
Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,” Eph. 1:5.

Jesus declared, “I give unto them (the true followers, or ‘sheep’)
eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them
out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than
all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand,” John
10:28. Here we find that our security and God’s omnipotence are equal;
for the former is founded on the latter. God is mightier than the whole
world, and neither men nor Devil can rob Him of one of His precious
jewels. It would be as easy to pluck a star out of the heavens as to
pluck a saint out of the Father’s hand. Their salvation stands in His
invincible might and they are placed beyond the peril of destruction.
We have Christ’s promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail
against His Church; yet if the Devil could snatch one here and another
there and large numbers in some congregations, the gates of hell would
to a great extent prevail against it. In principle, if one could be
lost, all might be lost, and thus Christ’s assurance would be reduced
to idle words.

When we are told that “There shall arise false Christs, and false
prophets, who shall show great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray,
IF POSSIBLE, even the elect,” Matt. 24:24, the unprejudiced believing
mind readily understands that it is IMPOSSIBLE to lead astray the
elect.

The mystic union which exists between Christ and believers is a
guarantee that they shall continue steadfast. “Because I live, ye shall
live also,” John 14:19. The effect of this union is that believers
participate in His life. Christ is in us, Rom. 8:10. It is not we that
live, but Christ that liveth in us, Gal. 2:20. Christ and the believers
have a common life such as that which exists in the vine and the
branches. The Holy Spirit so dwells in the redeemed that every
Christian is supplied with an inexhaustible reservoir of strength.

Paul warned the Ephesians, “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom
ye were sealed unto the day of redemption,” Eph. 4:30. He had no fear
of apostasy for he could confidently say, “Thanks be to God who always
leadeth us in triumph in Christ,” II Cor. 2:14. The Lord, speaking
through the prophet Jeremiah said, “I have loved you with an
everlasting love,” 31:3,–one of the best proofs that God’s love shall
have no end is that it has no beginning, but is eternal. In the parable
of the two houses, the very point stressed was that the house which was
founded on the rock (Christ) did not fall when the storms of life came.
Arminianism sets up another system in which some of those who are
founded on the rock do fall. In the twenty-third Psalm we read, “And I
shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.” The true Christian is no
temporary visitor, but a permanent dweller in the house of the Lord.
How those rob this psalm of its deeper and richer meaning who teach
that the grace of God is a temporary thing!

Christ makes intercession for His people (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25), and we
are told that the Father hears Him always (John 11:42). Hence the
Arminian, holding that Christians may fall away, must deny either the
passages which declare that Christ does make intercession for His
people, or he must deny those which declare that His prayers are always
heard. Let us consider here how well protected we are: Christ is at the
right hand of God pleading for us, and in addition to that, the Holy
Spirit makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be
uttered, Rom. 8:26.

In the wonderful promise of Jer. 32:40, God has promised to preserve
believers from their own backslidings: “And I will make an everlasting
covenant with them, and I will not turn away from following them, to do
them good; and I will put my fear in their hearts, that they may not
depart from me.” And in Ezek. 11:19, 20, He promises to take from them
the “stony heart,” and to give them a “heart of flesh,” so that they
shall walk in his statutes and keep his ordinances, and so that they
shall be His people and He their God. Peter tells us that Christians
cannot fall away, for they “by the power of God are guarded through
faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed at the last time,” I Peter
1:5. Paul says, “God is able to make all grace to abound unto you; that
ye, having always all sufficiency in everything, may abound unto every
good work,” II Cor. 9:8. He declares that the Lord’s servant “shall be
made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand,” Rom. 14:4.

And Christians have the further promise, “There hath no temptation
taken you but such as man can bear: but God is faithful, and will not
suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the
temptation make also the way of escape, that ye may be able to endure
it,” I Cor. 10:13. Their removal from certain temptations which would
be too strong for them is an absolute and free gift from God, since it
is entirely an arrangement of His providence as to what temptations
they encounter in the course of their lives, and what ones they escape.
“The Lord is faithful and will establish you and guard you from the
evil one,” II Thess. 3:3. And again, “The angel of the Lord encampeth
round about them that fear Him and delivereth them,” Ps. 34:7. Amid all
his trials and hardships Paul could say, “We are pressed on every side,
yet not straightened; perplexed, yet not unto despair; pursued, yet not
forsaken; smitten down, yet not destroyed; . . . . knowing that He that
raised up the Lord Jesus Christ shall raise us also with Jesus,” II
Cor. 4:8, 9, 14.

The saints, even in this world, are compared to a tree that does not
wither, Ps. 1:3; to the cedars which flourish on Mount Lebanon, Ps.
92:12; to Mount Zion which cannot be moved, but which abideth forever,
Ps. 125:1; and to a house built on a rock, Matt. 7:24. The Lord is with
them in their old age, Is. 46: 4, and is their guide even unto death,
Ps. 48:14, so that they cannot be totally and finally lost.

Another strong argument is to be noticed concerning the Lamb’s book of
life. The disciples were told to rejoice, not so much over the fact
that the demons were subject to them, but that their names were written
in the Lamb’s book of life. This book is a catalogue of the elect,
determined by the unalterable counsel of God, and can neither be
increased nor diminished. The names of the righteous are found there;
but the names of those who perish have never been written there from
the foundation of the world. God does not make the mistake of writing
in the book of life a name which He will later have to blot out. Hence
none of the Lord’s own ever perish. Jesus told His disciples to find
their chief joy in the fact that their names were written in heaven,
Luke 10:20; yet there would have been small grounds for joy in this
respect if their names written in heaven one day could have been
blotted out the next. Paul wrote to the Philippians, “Our citizenship
is in heaven,” 3:20; and to Timothy he wrote, “The Lord knoweth them
that are His,” II Tim. 2:19. For the Scripture teaching concerning the
book of life, see Luke 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8;
20:12-15; 21:27.

Here, then, are very simple and plain statements that the Christian
shall continue in grace, the reason being that the Lord takes it upon
Himself to preserve him in that state. In these promises the elect are
secured on both sides. Not only will God not depart from them, but He
will so put His fear into their hearts that they shall not depart from
him. Surely no Spirit-taught Christian can doubt that this doctrine is
taught in the Bible. It seems that man, poor, wretched and impotent as
he is, would welcome a doctrine which secures for him the possessions
of eternal happiness despite all attacks from without and all evil
tendencies from within. But it is not so. He refuses it, and argues
against it. And the causes are not far to seek. In the first place he
has more confidence in himself than be has any right to have. Secondly,
the scheme is so contrary to what he is used to in the natural world
that he persuades himself that it cannot be true. Thirdly, he perceives
that if this doctrine be admitted, the other doctrines of free grace
will logically follow. Hence he twists and explains away the Scripture
passages which teach it, and clings to some which appear on the surface
to favor his preconceived views. In fact, a system of salvation by
grace is so utterly at variance with his every-day experience, in which
be sees every thing and person treated according to works and merits,
that he has great difficulty in bringing himself to believe that it can
be true. He wishes to earn his own salvation, though certainly he
expects very high wages for very sorry work.
__________________________________________________________________

[91] Chapter XVII, Section 1.

[92] Theology, p. 690.

[93] Systematic Theology, III, p. 112.

[94] F. E. Hamilton, Article, The Reformed Faith and the Presbyterian
Church.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 15

1. It Is Fatalism

Much misunderstanding arises through confusing the Christian Doctrine
of Predestination with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism. There is, in
reality, only one point of agreement between the two, which is, that
both assume the absolute certainty of all future events. The essential
difference between them is that Fatalism has no place for a personal
God. Predestination holds that events come to pass because an
infinitely wise, powerful, and holy God has so appointed them. Fatalism
holds that all events come to pass through the working of a blind,
unintelligent, impersonal, non-moral force which cannot be
distinguished from physical necessity, and which carries us helplessly
within its grasp as mighty river carries a piece of wood.

Predestination teaches that from eternity God has had one unified plan
or purpose which He is bringing to perfection through this world order
of events. It holds that all of His decrees are rational determinations
founded on sufficient reason, and that He has fixed one great goal
“toward which the whole creation moves.” Predestination holds that the
ends designed in this plan are first, the glory of God; and second, the
good of His people. On the other hand Fatalism excludes the idea of
final causes. It snatches the reins of universal empire from the hands
of infinite wisdom and love, and gives them into the hands of a blind
necessity. It attributes the course of nature and the experiences of
mankind to an unknown, irresistible force, against which it is vain to
struggle and childish to repine.

According to the doctrine of Predestination the freedom and
responsibility of man are fully preserved. In the midst of certainty
God has ordained human liberty. But Fatalism allows no power of choice,
no self-determination. It makes the acts of man to be as utterly beyond
his control as are the laws of nature. Fatalism, with its idea of
irresistable, impersonal, abstract power, has no room for moral ideas,
while Predestination makes these the rule of action for God and man.
Fatalism has no place for and offers no incentives to religion, love,
mercy, holiness, justice, or wisdom, while Predestination gives these
the strongest conceivable basis. And lastly, Fatalism leads to
skepticism and despair, while Predestination sets forth the glories of
God and of His kingdom in all their splendor and gives an assurance
which nothing can shake.

Predestination therefore differs from Fatalism as much as the acts of a
man differ from those of a machine, or as much as the unfailing love of
the heavenly Father differs from the force of gravitation. “It reveals
to us,” says Smith, “the glorious truth that our lives and our
sensitive hearts are held, not in the iron cog-wheels of a vast and
pitiless Fate, nor in the whirling loom of a crazy Chance, but in the
almighty hands of an infinitely good and wise God.” [95]

Calvin emphatically repudiated the charge that his doctrine was
Fatalism. “Fate,” says he, “is a term given by the Stoics to their
doctrine of necessity, which they had formed out of a labyrinth of
contradictory reasonings; a doctrine calculated to call God Himself to
order, and to set Him laws whereby to work. Predestination I define to
be, according to the Holy Scriptures, that free and unfettered counsel
of God by which He rules all mankind, and all men and things, and also
all parts and particles of the world by His infinite wisdom and
incomprehensible justice.” And again, “. . . had you but been willing
to look into my books, you would have been convinced at once how
offensive to me is the profane term fate: nay, you would have learned
that this same abhorrent term was cast in the teeth of Augustine by his
opponents.” [96]

Luther says that the doctrine of Fatalism among the heathen is a proof
that “the knowledge of Predestination and of the prescience of God, was
no less left in the world than the notion of divinity itself.” [97] In
the history of philosophy Materialism has proven itself essentially
fatalistic. Pantheism also has been strongly tinged with it.

No man can be a consistent fatalist. For to be consistent he would have
to reason something like this: “If I am to die today, it will do me no
good to eat, for I shall die anyway. Nor do I need to eat if I am to
live many years yet, for I shall live anyway. Therefore I will not
eat.” Needless to say, if God has foreordained that a man shall live,
He has also foreordained that he shall be kept from the suicidal folly
of refusing to eat.

“This doctrine,” says Hamilton, “is only superficially like the pagan
‘fate.’ The Christian is in the hands not of a cold, immutable
determinism, but of a warm, loving heavenly Father, who loved us and
gave His Son to die for us on Calvary! The Christian knows that ‘all
things work together for good to them that love God, even to them that
are called according to His purpose.’ The Christian can trust God
because he knows He is all-wise, loving, just and holy. He sees the end
from the beginning, so that there is no reason to become panicky when
things seem to be going against us.”

Hence, only a person who has not examined this doctrine of
Predestination, or one who is maliciously inclined, will rashly charge
that it is Fatalism. There is no excuse for anyone making this mistake
who knows what Predestination is and what Fatalism is.

Since the universe is one systematized unit we must choose between
Fatalism, which ultimately does away with mind and purpose, and this
biblical doctrine of Predestination, which holds that God created all
things, that His providence extends to all His works, and that while
free Himself He has also provided that we shall be free within the
limits of our natures. Instead of our doctrine of Predestination being
the same with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism, it is its absolute
opposite and only alternative.
__________________________________________________________________

[95] The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 167.

[96] The Secret Providence of God, reprinted in Calvin’s Calvinism, pp.
261, 262.

[97] Bondage of the Will, p. 31.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 16

2. It Is Inconsistent with the Free Agency and Moral Responsibility of Man

1. The Problem of Man’s Free Agency. 2. This Objection Bears Equally
Against Foreknowledge. 3. Certainty is Consistent with Free Agency. 4.
Man’s Natural Will is Enslaved to Evil. 5. God Controls the Minds of
Men and Gives His People the Will to come. 6. The Way in Which the Will
is Determined. 7. Scripture Proof.

1. THE PROBLEM OF MAN’S FREE AGENCY

The problem which we face here is, How can a person be a free and
responsible agent if his actions have been foreordained from eternity?
By a free and responsible agent we mean an intelligent person who acts
with rational self-determination; and by foreordination we mean that
from eternity God has made certain the actual course of events which
takes place in the life of every person and in the realm of nature. It
is, of course, admitted by all that a person’s acts must be without
compulsion and in accordance with his own desires and inclinations, or
he cannot be held responsible for them. If the acts of a free agent are
in their very nature contingent and uncertain, then it is plain that
foreordination and free agency are inconsistent.

The philosopher who is convinced of the existence of a vast Power by
whom all things exist and are controlled, is forced to inquire where
the finite will can find expression under the reign of the Infinite.
The true solution of this difficult question respecting the sovereignty
of God and the freedom of man, is not to be found in the denial of
either, but rather in such a reconciliation as gives full weight to
each, yet which assigns a preeminence to the divine sovereignty
corresponding to the infinite exaltation of the Creator above the
sinful creature. The same God who has ordained all events has ordained
human liberty in the midst of these events, and this liberty is as
surely fixed as is anything else. Man is no mere automaton or machine.
In the Divine plan, which is infinite in variety and complexity which
reaches from everlasting to everlasting, and which includes millions of
free agents who act and inter-act upon each other, God has ordained
that human beings shall keep their liberty under His sovereignty. He
has made no attempt to give us a formal explanation of these things,
and our limited human knowledge is not able fully to solve the problem.
Since the Scripture writers did not hesitate to affirm the absolute
sway of God over the thoughts and intents of the heart, they felt no
embarrassment in including the acts of free agents within His
all-embracing plan. That the makers of the Westminster Confession
recognized the freedom of man is plain; for immediately after declaring
that “God has freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to
pass,” they added, “Yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,
nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the
liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather
established.”

While the act remains that of the individual, it is nevertheless due
more or less to the predisposing agency and efficacy of divine power
exerted in lawful ways. This may be illustrated to a certain extent in
the case of a man who wishes to construct a building. He decides on his
plan. Then he hires the carpenters, masons, plumbers, etc., to do the
work. These men are not forced to do the work. No compulsion of any
kind is used. The owner simply offers the necessary inducements by way
of wages, working conditions, and so on, so that the men work freely
and gladly. They do in detail just what he plans for them to do. His is
the primary and theirs is the secondary will or cause for the
construction of the building. We often direct the actions of our fellow
men without infringing on their freedom or responsibility. In a similar
way and to an infinitely greater degree God can direct our actions. His
will for the course of events is the primary cause and man’s will is
the secondary cause; and the two work together in perfect harmony.

In one sense we can say that the kingdom of heaven is a democratic
kingdom, paradoxical as that may sound. The essential principle of a
democracy is that it rests on “the consent of the governed.” Heaven
will be truly a kingdom, with God as the supreme Ruler; yet it will
rest on the consent of the governed. It is not forced on believers
against their consent. They are so influenced that they become willing,
and accept the Gospel, and find it the delight of their lives to do
their Sovereign’s will.

2. THIS OBJECTION BEARS EQUALLY AGAINST FOREKNOWLEDGE

Let it be noticed that the objection that foreordination is
inconsistent with free agency bears equally against the doctrine of the
foreknowledge of God. If God foreknows an event as future, it must be
as inevitably certain as if fore-ordained; and if one is inconsistent
with free agency, the other is also. This is often frankly admitted;
and the Unitarians, while not evangelical, are at this point more
consistent than the Arminians. They say that God knows all that is
knowable, but that free acts are uncertain and that it is doing no
dishonor to God to say that He does not know them.

We find, however, that the Scriptures contain predictions of many
events, great and small, which were perfectly fulfilled through the
actions of free agents. Usually these agents were not even conscious
that they were fulfilling divine prophecy. They acted freely, yet
exactly as foretold. A few examples are: the rejection of Jesus by the
Jews, the parting of Jesus’ garments and the casting lots by the Roman
soldiers, Peter’s denials of Jesus; the crowing of the cock, the spear
thrust, the capture of Jerusalem and the carrying away of the Jews into
captivity, the destruction of Babylon, etc. It is plain that the
writers of Scripture believed these free acts to be fully foreknown by
the divine mind and therefore absolutely certain to be accomplished.
The foreknowledge of God did not destroy the freedom of Judas and
Peter–at least they themselves did not think so, for Judas later came
back and said, “I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood;”
and when Peter heard the cock crow and remembered the words of Jesus,
he went out and wept bitterly.

In regard to the events which were connected with Jesus’ triumphant
entry into Jerusalem it is written: “These things understood not His
disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered
they that these things were written of Him, and that they had done
these things unto Him,” John 12:16. Because we know beforehand that an
upright judge will refuse a bribe, and a miser will clutch a nugget of
gold, does this alter the nature or prejudice the freedom of their
acts? And if we, with our very limited knowledge of other men’s natures
and of the influences which will play upon them, are able to predict
their actions with reasonable accuracy, shall not God, who understands
perfectly their natures and these influences, know exactly what their
actions will be?

Hence the certainty of an action is consistent with the liberty of the
agent in executing it; otherwise God could not foreknow such actions as
certain. Foreknowledge does not make future acts certain but only
assumes them to be so; and it is a contradiction of terms to say that
God foreknows as certain an event which in its very nature is
uncertain. We must either say that future events are certain and that
God knows the future, or that they are uncertain and that He does not
know the future. The doctrines of God’s foreknowledge and
foreordination stand or fall together.

3. CERTAINTY IS CONSISTENT WITH FREE AGENCY

Nor does it follow from the absolute certainty of a person’s acts that
he could not have acted otherwise. He could have acted otherwise if he
had chosen to have done so. Oftentimes a man has power and opportunity
to do that which it is absolutely certain he will not do, and to
refrain from doing that which it is absolutely certain he will do. That
is, no external influence determines his actions. Our acts are in
accordance with the decrees, but not necessarily so we can do otherwise
and often should. Judas and his accomplices were left to fulfill their
purpose, and they did as their wicked inclinations prompted them. Hence
Peter charged them with the crime, but he at the same time declared
that they had acted according to the purpose of God,–”Him being:
delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by
the hands of lawless men did crucify and slay,” Acts 2:23.

On other grounds also it may be shown that certainty is consistent with
free agency. We are often absolutely certain how we will act under
given conditions so far as we are free to act at all. A parent may be
certain that he will rescue a child in distress, and that in doing so
he will act freely. God is a free agent, yet it is certain that He will
always do right. The holy angels and redeemed saints are free agents,
yet it is certain that they will never sin; other- wise there would be
no assurance of their remaining in heaven. On the other hand, it is
certain that the Devil, the demons and fallen men will commit sin,
although they are free agents. A father often knows how his son will
act under given circumstances and by controlling these he determines
beforehand the course of action which the son follows, yet the son acts
freely. If he plans that the son shall be doctor, he gives him
encouragement along that line, persuades him to read certain books, to
attend certain schools, and so presents the outside inducements that
his plan works out. In the same manner and to an infinitely greater
extent God controls our actions so that they are certain although we
act freely. His decree does not produce the event, but only renders its
occurrence certain; and the same decree which determines the certainty
of the action at the same time determines the freedom of the agent in
the act.

4. MAN’S NATURAL WILL IS ENSLAVED TO EVIL

Strictly speaking we may say man has free will only in the sense that
he is not under any outside compulsion which interferes with his
freedom of choice or his just accountability. In his fallen state he
only has what we may call “the freedom of slavery.” He is in bondage to
sin and spontaneously follows Satan. He does not have the ability or
incentive to follow God. Now, we ask, is this a thing worthy the name
“free”? and the answer is, No. Not freewill but self-will would more
appropriately describe man’s condition since the fall. It is to be
remembered that man was not created a captive to sin but that he has
come into that condition by his own fault; and a loss which he has
brought upon himself does not free him from responsibility. After man’s
redemption is complete he will spontaneously follow God, as do the holy
angels; but never will he become entirely his own master.

That this was Luther’s doctrine cannot be denied. In his book, “The
Bondage of the Will,” the main purpose of which was to prove that the
will of man is by nature enslaved to evil only, and that because it is
fond of that slavery it is said to be free, he declared: “Whatever man
does, he does necessarily, though not with any sensible compulsion, and
he can only do what God from eternity willed and foreknew he should,
which will of God must be effectual and His foresight must be certain .
.. Neither the Divine nor human will does anything by constraint, and
whatever man does, be it good or bad, he does with as much appetite and
willingness as if his will was really free. But, after all, the will of
God is certain and unalterable, and it is the governess of ours.” [98]
In another place he says, “When it is granted and established, that
Free-will, having once lost its liberty, is compulsively bound to the
service of sin, and cannot will anything good; I from these words, can
understand nothing else than that Free-will is an empty term, whose
reality is lost. And a lost liberty, according to my grammar, is no
liberty at all.” [99] He refers to Free-will as “a mere lie,” [100] and
later adds, “This, therefore, is also essentially necessary and
wholesome for Christians to know: that God foreknows nothing by
contingency, but that He foresees, purposes and does all things
according to his immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this
thunderbolt, Free-will is thrown prostrate, utterly dashed to pieces
…. It follows unalterably, that all things which we do, although they
may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be
done thus contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and
immutably, with respect to the will of God. For the will of God is
effective and cannot be hindered; because the very power of God is
natural to Him, and His wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived.”
[101]

It is some times objected that unless man’s will is completely free,
God commands him to do what he cannot do. In numerous places in
Scripture, however, men are commended to do things which in their own
strength they are utterly unable to do. The man with the withered hand
was commanded to stretch it forth. The paralytic was commanded to arise
and walk; the sick man to arise, take up his bed and walk. The dead
Lazarus was commanded to come forth. Men are commanded to believe; yet
faith is said to be the “gift of God.” “Awake, thou that sleepest, and
arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee,” Eph. 6:14. “Ye
therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” Matt.
5:48. Man’s self-imposed inability in the moral sphere does not free
him from obligation.

5. GOD CONTROLS THE MINDS OF MEN AND GIVES HIS PEOPLE THE WILL TO COME

God so governs the inward feelings, external environment, habits,
desires, motives, etc., of men that they freely do what He purposes.
This operation its inscrutable, but none the less real; and the mere
fact that in our present state of knowledge we are not able fully to
explain how this influence is exerted without destroying the free
agency of man, certainly does not prove that it cannot be so exerted.

We do have enough knowledge, however, to know that God’s sovereignty
and man’s freedom are realities, and that they work together in perfect
harmony. Paul plants, and Apollos, waters, but God gives the increase.
Paul commanded the Philippians, “Work out your own salvation with fear
and trembling;” and in the immediately following verse the reason which
he assigns for this is, “For it is God who worketh in you both to will
and to work, for His good pleasure” (2:15, 13). And the psalmist
declared, “They people offer themselves willingly in the day of thy
power” (110:3).

The actions of a creature are to a great extent predetermined when God
stamps upon it a particular “nature” at its creation. If it is given
human nature, its actions will be those common to men; if horse nature,
those common to horses; or if vegetable nature, those common to the
vegetable world. Plain it is that those given human nature were
foreordained not to walk on four feet, nor to neigh like a horse. An
act is not free if determined from without; but it is free if
rationally determined from within, and this is precisely what God’s
foreordination effects. The comprehensive decree provides that each man
shall be a free agent, possessing a certain character, surrounded by a
certain environment, subject to certain external influences, internally
moved by certain affections, desires, habits, etc., and that in view of
all these he shall freely and rationally make a choice. That the choice
will be one thing and not another, is certain; and God, who knows and
controls the exact causes of each influence, knows what that choice
will be, and in a real sense determines it. Zanchius expressed this
idea very clearly when he declared that man was a free agent, and then
added, “Yet he acts, from the first to the last moment of his life, in
absolute subserviency (though, perhaps he does not know it, nor design
it) to the purposes and decrees of God concerning him; notwithstanding
which, he is sensible of no compulsion, but acts freely and
voluntarily, as if he were subject to no control, and absolutely lord
of himself.” And Luther says, “Both good and evil men, though by their
actions they fulfill the decrees and appointments of God, yet are not
forcibly constrained to do anything, but act willingly.”

In accordance with this we believe that, without destroying or
impairing the free agency of men, God can exercise over them a
particular providence and work in them through His Holy Spirit so that
they will come to Christ and persevere in His service. We believe
further that none have this will and desire except those whom God has
previously made willing and desirous; and that He gives this will and
desire to none but His own elect. But while thus induced, the elect
remain as free as the man that you persuade to take a walk or to invest
in government securities.

An illustration which well shows God’s relation with both the saved end
the lost is given by H. Johnson,–”Here are two hundred men in prison
for violation of law. I make Provision for their pardon, so that
justice is satisfied and the law vindicated, while yet the prisoners
may go free. The prison doors are unbarred, the bolts thrown back, and
promise of absolute pardon is made and assurance is given every
prisoner that he can now step out a free man. But not a man moves.
Suppose now I determine that my provision for their pardon shall not be
in vain. So I personally go to one hundred and fifty of these condemned
and guilty men, and by a kind of loving violence persuade them to come
out. That’s election. But have I kept the other fifty in? The provision
for pardon is still sufficient, the prison doors are still unbarred,
the gates of their cells are still unlocked and open, and freedom is
promised to everyone who will step out and take it; and every man in
that prison knows he can be a free man if he will. Have I kept the
other fifty in?” [102]

The old Pelagian tenet, which has sometimes been adopted by Arminians,
that virtue and vice derive their praiseworthiness or blameworthiness
from the power of the individual beforehand to choose the one or the
other, logically leads one to deny goodness to the angels in heaven, or
to the saints in glory, or even to God Himself, since it is impossible
for the angels, saints, or for God to sin. Virtue, then, in the
heavenly state would cease to be meritorious, because it required no
effort of choice. The idea that the power of choice between good and
evil is that which ennobles and dignifies the will is a misconception.
It does, indeed, raise man above the brute creation; but it is not the
perfection of his will. Says Mozley: “The highest and the perfect state
of the will is a state of necessity; and the power of choice, so far
from being essential to a true and genuine will, is its weakness and
defect. That can be a greater sign of an imperfect and immature state
of the will than that, with good and evil before it, it should be in
suspense which to do?” [103] In this life that grace from which good
actions necessarily follow is not given with uniformity, and
consequently even the regenerate occasionally commit sin; but in the
next life it will be either constantly given or taken away entirely,
and then the determination of the will will be constant either for good
or for evil.

Perhaps some idea of the manner in which the Divine and human agencies
harmonize to produce one work may be gained from a consideration of the
way in which the Scriptures were written. These are, in the highest
sense, and at the same time, the words of God and also the words of
men. It is not merely certain parts or elements which are to be
assigned to God or to men; but rather the whole of Scripture in all of
its parts, in form of expression as well as in substance of teaching,
is from God, and also from men. Although the writers were so influenced
by the Holy Spirit that they wrote what God wanted written, and were
fully preserved from error, they retained their free agency, and we
should recognize both the divine and the human side of Scripture.

Undoubtedly there is a contradiction in supposing that “chance
happenings,” or those events produced by free will agents, can be the
objects of definite foreknowledge or the subjects of previous
arrangement. In the very nature of the case they must be both radically
and eventually uncertain, “so that,” as Toplady says, “any assertor of
self-determination is in fact, whether he means it or no, a worshiper
of the heathen lady named Fortune, and an ideal deposer of providence
from its throne.”

Unless God could thus govern the minds of men He would be constantly
engaged in devising new expedients to offset the effects of the
influences introduced by the millions of His creatures. If men actually
had free will, then in attempting to govern or convert a person, God
would have to approach him as a man approaches his fellowmen, with
several plans in mind so that if the first proves unsuccessful he can
try the second, and if that does not work, then the third, and so on.
If the acts of free agents are uncertain, God is ignorant of the future
except in a most general way. He is then surprised times without number
and daily receives great accretions of knowledge. But such a view is
dishonoring to God, and is both unreasonable and unscriptural. Unless
God’s omniscience is denied we must hold that He knows all truth, past,
present, and future; and that while events may appear uncertain from
our human view-point, from His view-point they are fixed and certain.
This argument is so conclusive that its force is generally admitted.
The weaker objection. which is sometimes urged that God voluntarily
wills not to know some of the future acts of men in order to leave them
free has no support either in Scripture or in reason. Furthermore, it
represents God as acting like the father of a lot of bad boys who goes
and hides because he is afraid he will see them do something of which
he would not approve. If God is limited either by an outside force or
by His own acts, we have only a finite God.

The Arminian theory that God is anxiously trying to convert sinners but
not able to exert more than persuasive power without doing violence to
their natures, is really much the same in this respect as the old
Persian view that there were two eternal principles of good and evil at
war with each other, neither of which was able to overcome the other.
Free-will tears the reins of government out of the hands of God, and
robs Him of His power. It places the creatures beyond His absolute
control and in some respects gives them veto power over His eternal
will and purpose. It even makes it possible that angels and saints in
heaven might sin, that there might again be a general rebellion in
heaven such as is supposed to have occurred when Satan and the fallen
angels were cast out, and that evil might become dominant or universal.

6. THE WAY IN WHICH THE WILL IS DETERMINED

Since man is a rational agent there must always be a sufficient cause
for his acting in a particular way. For the will to decide in favor of
the weaker motive and against the stronger, or without motives at all,
is to have an effect without a sufficient cause. Conscience teaches us
that we always have reasons for the things we do, and that after acting
we are conscious that we might have acted differently had other views
or feelings been present. The reason for a particular act may not be
strong and it may even be based on a false judgment, but in each
particular instance it is strong enough to control. Scales will swing
in the opposite direction only when there is a cause adequate to the
effect. A person may choose that which in some respects is
disagreeable; but in each case some other motive is present which
influences the person to a choice which otherwise would not have been
made. For instance, a person may willingly have a tooth pulled out; but
he will not do so unless some inducement is present which for the time
being at least makes this the stronger inclination. As it has been
expressed, “a man cannot prefer against his preference or choose
against his choice.” A person who prefers to live in California cannot,
by a mere act of will, prefer to live in New York.

Man’s volitions are, in fact, governed by his own nature, and are in
accordance with the desires, dispositions, inclinations, knowledge, and
character of the person. Man is not independent of God, nor of mental
and physical laws, and all of these exert their particular influences
in his choices. He always acts in the way in which the strongest
inclinations or motives lead; and conscience tells us that the things
which appeal to us most powerfully at the time are the things which
determine our volitions. Says Dr. Hodge, “The will is not determined by
any law of necessity; it is not independent, indifferent, or
self-determined, but is always determined by the preceding state of
mind; so that a man is free so long as his volitions are the conscious
expression of his mind; or so long as his activity is determined and
controlled by his reason and feelings.” [104]

Unless a person’s volitions were based on and determined by his
character they would not really be his, and he could not be held
responsible for them. In our relations with our fellow men we
instinctively assume that their good or bad volitions are determined by
good or bad character, and we judge them accordingly. “By their fruits
ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of
thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the
corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth
evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit . . .
Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them,” Matt. 7:16-20. And
again, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” The tree
is not free to produce good or bad fruit at random, but is governed by
its nature. It is not the goodness of the fruit which causes the
goodness of the tree, but the reverse. And according to the parable of
Jesus, the same is true of man. And unless conduct does reveal
character, how are we to know that the man who does good acts is really
a good man, or that the man who does evil acts is really an evil man?
While some for the sake of argument may insist that the will is free,
in every day life all men assume that the will is both a product and a
revelation of the person’s nature. When a man exerts a volition which
results in robbery or murder, we instinctively conclude that this is a
true indicator of character and deal with him accordingly.

The very essence of rationality is that the volitions must be based on
the understanding, principles, feelings, etc., and the person whose
volitions are not so based is considered foolish. If after every
decision the will reverted to a state of indecision and oscillation
equipoised between good and evil, the basis for confidence in our
fellow men would be gone. In fact a person whose will was really “free”
would be a dangerous associate; his acts would be irrational and we
would have no way of knowing what he might do under any conditions.

It is this fact (that volitions are a true expression of the person’s
nature) which guarantees the permanence of the states of the saved and
of the lost in the next world. If mere free agency necessarily exposed
a person to sin there would be no certainty that even the redeemed in
heaven would not sin and be cast down to hell as were the fallen
angels. The saints, however, possess a necessity on the side of
goodness, and are therefore free in the highest sense. There is an
absence of strife, and their wills, confirmed in holiness, go on
producing good acts and motions with the ease and uniformity of
physical law. On the other hand the state of the wicked is also
permanent. After the restraining influences of the Holy Spirit are
withdrawn, they become bold, defiant, blasphemous, and sin with an
irremediable obstinacy. They have passed into a permanent disposition
of malice and wickedness and hate. They are no longer guests and
strangers, but citizens and dwellers, in the land of sin. Further, if
the theory of free-will were true, it would give the possibility of
repentance after death; for is it not reasonable to believe that at
least some of the lost, after they began to suffer the torments of
hell, would see their mistake and return to God? In this world mild
punishments are often effective in turning; men from sin; why should
not severer punishments in the next world be more effective? Only the
Calvinistic principle that the will is determined by the nature of the
person and the inducements presented, reaches a conclusion in harmony
with that of Scripture which affirms that “there is a great gulf
fixed,” so that none can pass over,–that the states of the saved and
the lost alike are permanent.

The person who has not given the matter any special thought assumes
that he has great freedom. But when he comes to examine this boasted
freedom a little more closely he finds that he is much more limited
than at first appeared. He is limited by the laws of the physical
world, by his particular environment, habits, past training, social
customs, fear of punishment or disapproval, his present desires,
ambitions, etc., so that he is far from being the absolute master of
his actions. At any moment he is pretty much what his past has made
him. But so long as he acts under the control of his own nature and
determines his actions from within, he has all the liberty of which a
creature is capable. Any other kind of liberty is anarchy.

A man may carry a bowl of gold-fish wherever he pleases; yet the fish
feel themselves free, and move unrestrainedly within the bowl. The
science of Physics tells us of molecular motion amid molar calm,–when
we look at the piece of stone, or wood, or metal, it appears to the
naked eye to be perfectly quiet; yet if we had a magnifying glass
powerful enough to see the individual molecules and atoms and
electrons, we should find them whirling in their orbits at incredible
speeds.

Predestination and free agency are the twin pillars of a great temple,
and they meet above the clouds where the human gaze cannot penetrate.
Or again, we may say that Predestination and free agency are parallel
lines; and while the Calvinist may not be able to make them unite, the
Arminian cannot make them cross each other. Furthermore, if we admit
free will in the sense that the absolute determination of events is
placed in the hands of man, we might as well spell it with a capital F
and a capital W; for then man has become like God,–a first cause, an
original spring of action,–and we have as many semi-Gods as we have
free wills. Unless the sovereignty of God be given up, we cannot allow
this independence to man. It is very noticeable–and in a sense it is
reassuring to observe the fact–that the materialistic and metaphysical
philosophers deny as completely as do Calvinists this thing that is
called free will. They reason that every effect must have a sufficient
cause; and for every action of the will they seek to find a motive
which for the moment at least is strong enough to control.

7. SCRIPTURE PROOF

The Scriptures teach that Divine sovereignty and human freedom
co-operate in perfect harmony; that while God is the sovereign Ruler
and primary cause, man is free within the limits of his nature and is
the secondary cause; and that God so controls the thoughts and wills of
men that they freely and willingly do what He has planned for them to
do.

A classic example of the co-operation of Divine sovereignty and human
freedom is found in the story of Joseph. Joseph was sold into Egypt
where he rose in authority and rendered a great service by supplying
food in time of famine. It was, of course, a very sinful act for those
sons of Jacob to sell their younger brother into slavery in a heathen
country. They knew that they acted freely, and years later they
admitted their full guilt (Gen. 42:21; 45:3). Yet Joseph could say to
them, “Be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me
hither; for God did send me before you to preserve life. . . . So now
it was not you that sent me hither, but God;” and again, “As for you,
ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass,
as it is this day, to save much people alive,” Gen. 45:5, 8; 50:20.
Joseph’s brothers simply followed the evil inclinations of their
natures; yet their act was a link in the chain of events through which
God fulfilled His purpose; and their guilt was not the least diminished
by the fact that their intended evil was overruled for good.

Pharaoh acted very unjustly toward his subject people, the Children of
Israel; yet he simply fulfilled the purpose of God, for Paul writes,
“The scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise
thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be
published abroad in all the earth,” Rom. 9:17; Ex. 9:16; 10:1, 2. Some
of God’s plans are carried out by restraining the sinful acts of men.
When the Israelites went up to Jerusalem three times a year for the set
feasts, God restrained the greed of the neighboring tribes so that the
land was not molested, Ex. 34:24. He put it into the heart of Cyrus,
the heathen king of Persia, to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, Ezra
1:1-3. We are told, “The king’s heart is in the hand of Jehovah, as the
watercourses; He turneth it whithersoever He will,” Prov. 21:1. And if
He turns the king’s heart so easily surely he can turn the hearts of
common men also.

In Isaiah 10:5-15 we have a very remarkable illustration of the way in
which divine sovereignty and human freedom work together in perfect
harmony: “Ho, Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, the staff in whose hand
is mine indignation! I will send him against a profane nation, and
against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the
spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of
the streets. Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think
so; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a
few. For he saith, Are not my princes all of them kings? Is not Calno
as Carchemish? Is not Hamath as Arpad? Is not Samaria as Damascus? As
my hand hath found the kingdoms of the idols, whose graven images did
excel them of Jerusalem and Samaria; shall I not, as I have done unto
Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her idols?

“Wherefore it shall come to pass, that, when the Lord hath performed
His whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the
fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his
high looks. For he hath said, by the strength of my hand I have done
it, and by my wisdom; for I have understanding; and I have removed the
bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and like a
valiant man I have brought down them that sit on thrones; and my hand
hath found as a nest the riches of the peoples; and as one gathereth
eggs that are forsaken, have I gathered all the earth; and there was
none that moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or chirped.

“Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Shall
the saw magnify itself against him that wieldeth it? As if a rod should
wield them that lift it up, or as if a staff should lift up him that is
not wood.”

Concerning this passage Rice says: “What is the obvious meaning of this
passage? It does most unequivocally teach, in the first place, that the
king of Assyria, though a proud and ungodly man, was but an instrument
in the hands of God, just as the axe, the saw, or the rod in the hands
of a man, to execute His purposes upon the Jews; and that God had
perfect control of him. It teaches, in the second place that the free
agency of the king was not destroyed or impaired by this control, but
that he was perfectly free to form his own plans and to be governed by
his own desires. For it is declared that he did not design to execute
God’s purposes, but to promote his own ambitious projects. ‘Howbeit he
meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart
to destroy and to cut off nations not a few.’ It consequently teaches,
thirdly, that the king was justly held responsible for his pride, and
wickedness, although God so overruled him that he fulfilled His wise
purposes. God decreed to chastise the Jews for their sin. He chose to
employ the king of Assyria to execute His purpose, and therefore sent
him against them. He would afterward punish the king for his wicked
plans. Is it not evident, then, beyond all cavil, that the Scriptures
teach that God can and does, so control men, even wicked men, as to
bring to pass His wise purposes without interfering with their free
agency?” [105]

For any one who accepts the Bible as the word of God it is absolutely
certain that the crucifixion of Christ–the most sinful event in all
history–was foreordained: “For of a truth in this city against thy
holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius
Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered
together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel foreordained to
come to pass,” Acts 4:27, 28; “Him being delivered up by the
determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hands of
lawless men did crucify and slay,” Acts 2:23; and “The things which God
foreshowed by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should
suffer, He thus fulfilled,” Acts 3:18. “For they that dwell in
Jerusalem, and their rulers because they knew Him not, nor the voice of
the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them in condemning
Him. And though they found no cause of death in Him, yet they asked
Pilate that He should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all things
that were written of Him, they took Him down from the tree, and laid
Him in a tomb,” Acts 13:27-29.

And not only the crucifixion itself was foreordained, but many of the
attending event, such as: the parting of Christ’s garments and the
casting of lots for His vesture (Ps. 22:18; John 19:24); the giving of
gall and vinegar to drink (Ps. 69:21; Matt. 27:34; John 19:29); the
mockery on the part of the people (Ps. 22:6-8; Matt. 27:39); the fact
that they associated Him with thieves (Is. 53:12; Matt. 27:38); that
none of His bones were to be broken (Ps. 34:20; John 19:36); the spear
thrust (Zech. 12:10; John 19:34-37); and several other recorded events.
Listen to the babble of hell around the cross, and tell us if those men
were not free! Yet read all the forecast and prophecy and record of the
tragedy and tell us if every incident of it was not ordained of God!
Furthermore, these events could not have been predicted in detail by
the Old Testament prophets centuries before they came to pass unless
they had been absolutely certain in the foreordained plan of God. Yet
while foreordained, they were carried out by agents who were ignorant
of who Christ really was, and who were also ignorant of the fact that
they were fulfilling the divine decrees, Acts 13:27, 29; 3:17. Hence if
we swallow the camel in believing that the most sinful event in all
history was in the foreordained plan of God, and that it was overruled
for the redemption of the world, shall we strain at the gnat in
refusing to believe that the smaller events of our daily lives are also
in that plan, and that they are designed for good purposes?

FURTHER SCRIPTURE PROOF

Prov. 16:9: A man’s heart deviseth his way; But Jehovah directeth his
steps.

Jer. 10:23: O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Ex. 12:36: And Jehovah gave the people favor in the sight of the
Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked.

Ezra 6:22: For Jehovah had made them joyful, and had turned the heart
of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work
of the house of God (rebuilding the temple).

Ezra 7:6: And the king (Artaxerxes) granted him (Ezra) all his request,
according to the hand of Jehovah his God upon him.

Is. 44:28: (Jehovah) that saith of Cyrus (the heathen king of Persia),
He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying of
Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall
be laid.

Rev. 17:17: (Concerning the wicked it is said) God did put in their
hearts to do His mind, and to come to one mind, and to give their
kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God should be accomplished.

I Sam. 2:25: They (Eli’s sons) harkened not unto the voice of their
father, because Jehovah was minded to slay them.

I Kings 12:11, 15: And now whereas my father (Solomon) did lade you
with a heavy yoke, I (Rehoboam) will add to your yoke; my father
chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. . . .
So the king harkened not unto the people; for it was a thing brought
about of Jehovah.

II Sam. 17:14: And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The Counsel
of Hushai is better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For Jehovah had
ordained to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that
Jehovah might bring evil upon Absalom .
__________________________________________________________________

[98] Quoted by Zanchius, p. 56.

[99] Bondage of the Will, p. 125.

[100] id. p. 5.

[101] id. pp. 26, 27.

[102] Pamphlet,–The Love of God for Every Man.

[103] The Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, p. 73.

[104] Systematic Theology, II., p. 288.

[105] God Sovereign and Man Free, p. 70, 71.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 17

3. It Makes God the Author of Sin

1. The Problem of Evil. 2. Instances in Which Sin Has Been Overruled
for Good. 3. The Fall of Adam Was Included in the Divine Plan. 4. The
Result of Adam’s Fall. 5. The Forces of Evil Are Under God’s Perfect
Control. 6. Sinful Acts Occur Only by Divine Permission. 7. Scripture
Proof. 8. Comments by Smith and Hodge. 9. God’s Grace is More Deeply
Appreciated After the Person Has Been the Victim of Sin. 10. Calvinism
Offers a More Satisfactory Solution of the Problem of Evil Than Does
Any Other System.

1. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

The objection may be raised that if God has foreordained the entire
course of events in this world He must be the Author of Sin. To begin
with, we readily admit that the existence of sin in a universe which is
under the control of a God who is infinite in His wisdom, power,
holiness, and justice, is an inscrutable mystery which we in our
present state of knowledge cannot fully explain. As yet we only see
through a glass darkly. Sin can never be explained on the grounds of
logic or reason, for it is essentially illogical and unreasonable. The
mere fact that sin exists has often been urged by atheists and skeptics
as an argument not merely against Calvinism but against theism in
general.

The Westminster Standards, in treating of the dread mystery of evil,
are very careful to guard the character of God from even the suggestion
of evil. Sin is referred to the freedom which is given to the agent,
and of all sinful acts whatever they emphatically affirm that “the
sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature and not from God,
who, being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be the author
or approver of sin.” (V; 4.)

And while it is not ours to explain how God in His secret counsel rules
and overrules the sinful acts of men, it is ours to know that whatever
God does He never deviates from His own perfect justice. In all the
manifestations of His character He shows Himself pre-eminently the Holy
One. These deep workings of God are mysteries which are to be adored,
but not to be inquired into; and were it not for the fact that some
persons persist in declaring that the doctrine of Predestination makes
God the author of sin, we could let the matter rest here.

A partial explanation of sin is found in the fact that while man is
constantly commanded in Scripture not to commit it, he is,
nevertheless, permitted to commit it if he chooses to do so. No
compulsion is laid on the person; he is simply left to the free
exercise of his own nature, and he alone is responsible. This, however,
is never a bare permission, for with full knowledge of the nature of
the person and of his tendency to sin, God allows him or allows him to
be in a certain environment, knowing perfectly well that the particular
sin will be committed. But while God permits sin, His connection with
it is purely negative and it is the abominable thing which he hates
with perfect hatred. The motive which God has in permitting it and the
motive which man has in committing it are radically different. Many
persons are deceived in these matters because they fail to consider
that God wills righteously those things which men do wickedly.
Furthermore, every person’s conscience after he has committed a sin
tells him that he alone is responsible and that he need not have
committed it if he had not voluntarily chosen to do so.

The Reformers recognized the fact that sin, both in its entrance into
the world and in all its subsequent appearances, was involved in the
divine plan; that the explanation of its existence, so far as any
explanation could be given, was to be found in the fact that sin was
completely under the control of God; and that it would be overruled for
a higher manifestation of His glory. We may rest assured that God would
never have permitted sin to have entered at all unless, through His
secret and overruling providence, He was able to exert a directing
influence on the minds of wicked men so that good is made to result
from their intended evil. He works not only all the good and holy
affections which are found in the hearts of His people, but He also
perfectly controls all the depraved and impious affections of the
wicked, and turns them as He pleases, so that they have a desire to
accomplish that which He has planned to accomplish by their means. The
wicked so often glory in themselves at some accomplishment of their
purposes; but as Calvin says, “the event at length proves that they
were only fulfilling all the while that which had been ordained of God,
and that too, against their own will, while they knew nothing of it.”
But while God does overrule the depraved affections of men for the
accomplishment of His own purposes, He nevertheless punishes them for
their sin and makes them to stand condemned in their own consciences.

“A ruler may forbid treason; but his command does not oblige him to do
all in his power to prevent disobedience to it. It may promote the good
of his kingdom to suffer the treason to be committed, and the traitor
to be punished according to law. That in view of this resulting good he
chooses not to prevent the treason, does not imply any contradiction or
opposition of it in the monarch.” [106]

In regard to the problem of evil, Dr. A. H. Strong advances the
following considerations: “(1) That freedom of will is necessary to
virtue; (2) that God suffers from sin more than does the sinner; (3)
that, with the permission of sin, God has provided a redemption; and,
(4) that God will eventually overrule all evil for good.” And then he
adds, “It is possible that the elect angels belong to a moral system in
which sin is prevented by constraining motives. We cannot deny that God
could prevent sin in a moral system. But it is very doubtful whether
God could prevent sin in the best moral system. The most perfect
freedom is indispensable to the attainment of the highest virtue.”
[107] Fairbairn has given us some good thought in the following
paragraph: “But why did God create a being capable of sinning? Only so
could He create a being capable of obeying. The ability to do good
implies the capability of doing evil. The engine can neither obey nor
disobey, and the creature who was without this double capacity might be
a machine, but could be no child. Moral perfection can be attained, but
cannot be created; God can make a being capable of moral action, but
not a being with all the fruits of moral action garnered within him.”

2. INSTANCES IN WHICH SIN HAS BEEN OVERRULED FOR GOOD

Throughout the Scriptures we find numerous instances In which sinful
acts were permitted and then overruled for good. We shall first notice
some Old Testament examples. Jacob’s deception of his old, blind
father, though a sinful act in itself, was permitted and used as a link
in the chain of events through which the already revealed plan of God
that the elder should serve the younger was carried out. Pharaoh and
the Egyptians were permitted to wrong the Israelites, that by their
deliverance God’s wonders might be multiplied in the land of Egypt (Ex.
11:9), that these things might be told to future generations (Ex. 10:1,
2), and that His glory might be declared throughout all the earth (Ex.
9:16). The curse Balaam tried to pronounce upon the Israelites was
turned into a blessing (Nu. 24:10; Neh. 13:2). The proud, heathen king
of Assyria unconsciously became the servant of Jehovah in executing
vengeance upon an apostate people: “Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither
doth his heart think so,” Is. 10:5-15. The calamities which befell Job,
as seen from the human viewpoint appear to be mere misfortunes,
accidents, chance happenings. But with further knowledge we see God
behind it all, exercising complete control, giving the Devil permission
to afflict so far but no farther, designing the events for the
development of Job’s patience and character, and using even the
seemingly meaningless waste of the storm to fulfill His high and loving
purposes.

In the New Testament we find the same teaching. The death of Lazarus,
as seen from the human viewpoint of Mary and Martha and those who came
to mourn for him, was a very great misfortune; but when seen from the
divine viewpoint it was “not unto death, but for the glory of God, that
the Son of God might be glorified thereby,” John 11: 4. The manner of
Peter’s death (which apparently was by crucifixion) was to glorify God
(John 21:19). When Jesus crossed the sea of Galilee with His disciples
He could have prevented the storm and have ordered them a pleasant
passage, but that would not have been so much for His glory and the
confirmation of their faith as was their deliverance. Paul, by his
stern rebukes, made the Corinthians “sorry unto repentance,” “after a
godly sort ;” “for godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a
repentance which bringeth no regret; but the sorrow of the world
worketh death,” II Cor. 7:9, 10. The Lord often temporarily delivers a
person over to Satan, that his bodily and mental sufferings may react
for his salvation, (I Cor. 5:5). Paul, in speaking of the adversities
which he had suffered, said, “Now I would have you know, brethren, that
the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the
progress of the gospel,” Phil. 1:12. When he saw that his “thorn in the
flesh” was something which had been divinely sent upon him, “a
messenger of Satan to buffet him,” so that he “should not be exalted
over much,” he accepted it with the words, ‘Most gladly therefore will
I rather glory in my weakness, that the power of Christ may rest upon
me,” II Cor. 12:7-10. In that instance God made the poison of the
cruelest and most sinful monster of all time to be an antidote to cure
the apostle’s pride.

To a certain extent we can say that the reason for the permission of
sin is that, “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” Such
deep, unfathomable grace could not have been shown if sin had been
excluded.

As a matter of fact we gain more through salvation in Christ than we
lost by the fall in Adam. When Christ became incarnate, human nature
was, as it were, taken into the very bosom of Deity, and the redeemed
reach a far more exalted position through union with Christ than Adam
could have attained had he not fallen but persevered and been admitted
into heaven.

This general truth was expressed by Calvin in the following words:
“But, God, who once commanded light to shine out of darkness, can
marvelously bring, if He pleases, salvation out of hell itself, and
thus turn darkness itself to light. But what worketh Satan? In a
certain sense, the work of God! That is, God, by holding Satan fast
bound in obedience to His Providence, turns him whithersoever He will,
and thus applies the great enemy’s devices and attempts to the
accomplishment of His own eternal principles. [108]

Even the persecutions which are permitted to come upon the righteous
are designed for good purposes. Paul declares that “our light
affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us more and more
exceedingly an eternal weight of glory,” II Cor. 4:17. To suffer with
Christ is to be more closely united to Him, and great reward in heaven
is promised to those who suffer in His behalf (Matt. 5:10-12). To the
Philippians it was written, “To you it hath been granted in the behalf
of Christ not only to believe on Him but else to suffer in His behalf,”
Phil. 1:29; and we read that after the apostles had been publicly
abused, “They departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that
they were accounted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name,” Acts 5:41.
The writer of the book of Hebrews stated this same truth when he wrote,
“All chastening seemeth for the present to be not joyous but grievous;
yet afterward it yieldeth peaceable fruit to them that have been
exercised thereby, even the fruit of righteousness,” Heb. 12:11.

“The acts of the wicked in persecuting the early Church,” says Dr.
Charles Hodge, “were ordained of God as the means for the wider and
more speedy proclamation of the Gospel. The sufferings of the martyrs
were the means not only of extending but of purifying the Church. The
apostasy of the man of sin being predicted, was predetermined. The
destruction of the Huguenots in France, the persecution of the Puritans
in England, laid the foundation for the planting of North America with
a race of godly energetic men, who were to make this land the land of
refuge for the nations, the home of liberty, civil and religious. It
would destroy the confidence of God’s people could they be persuaded
that God does not foreordain whatever comes to pass. It is because the
Lord reigns, and doeth His pleasure in heaven and on earth, that they
repose in perfect security under His guidance and protection.” [109]

Many of the divine attributes were displayed through the creation and
government of the world, but the attribute of justice could be shown
only to creatures deserving punishment, and the attribute of mercy or
grace could be shown only to creatures in misery. Until man’s fall into
sin, and redemption from it, these attributes, so far as we can learn,
had been unexercised and undisplayed, and consequently were unknown to
any but God Himself from all eternity. Had not sin been admitted to the
creation these attributes would have remained buried in an eternal
night. And the universe, without the knowledge of these attributes,
would be like the earth without the light of the sun. Sin, then, is
permitted in order that the mercy of God may be shown in its
forgiveness, and that His justice may be shown in its punishment. Its
entrance is the result of a settled design which God formed in
eternity, and through which He purposed to reveal Himself to His
rational creatures as complete and full-orbed in all conceivable
perfections.

3. THE FALL OF ADAM WAS INCLUDED IN THE DIVINE PLAN

Even the fall of Adam, and through him the fall of the race, was not by
chance or accident, but was so ordained in the secret counsels of God.
We are told that Christ was “foreknown indeed (as a sacrifice for sin)
before the foundation of the world,” I Peter 1:20. Paul speaks of “the
eternal purpose” which was purposed in Jesus Christ our Lord, Eph.
3:l1. The writer of Hebrews refers to “the blood of an eternal
covenant,” 13:20. And since the plan of redemption is thus traced back
into eternity, the plan to permit man to fall into the sin from which
he was thus to be redeemed must also extend back into eternity;
otherwise there would have been no occasion for redemption. In fact the
plan for the whole course of the world’s events, including the fall,
redemption, and all other events, was before God in its completeness
before He ever brought the creation into existence; and He deliberately
ordered it that this series of events, and not some other series,
should become actual.

And unless the fall was in the plan of God, what becomes of our
redemption through Christ? Was that only a makeshift arrangement which
God resorted to in order to offset the rebellion of man? To ask such a
question is to answer it. Throughout the Scriptures redemption is
represented as the free, gracious purpose of God from eternity. In the
very hour of man’s first sin, God sovereignly intervened with a
gratuitous promise of deliverance. While the glory of God is displayed
in the whole realm of creation, it was to be especially displayed in
the work of redemption. The fall of man, therefore, was only one part
and a necessary part in the plan; and even Watson, though a decided
Arminian, says, “The redemption of man by Christ was certainly not an
afterthought brought in upon man’s apostasy; it was a provision, and
when man fell he found justice hand in hand with mercy.” [110]

Consistent Arminianism, however, pictures God as an idle, inactive
spectator sitting in doubt while Adam fell, and as quite surprised and
thwarted by the creature of His hands. In contrast with this, we hold
that God fore-planned and fore-saw the fall; that it in no sense came
as a surprise to Him; and that after it had occurred He did not feel
that He had made a mistake in creating man. Had He wished He could have
prevented Satan’s entrance into the garden and could have preserved
Adam in a state of holiness as He did the holy angels. The mere fact
that God fore-saw the fall is sufficient proof that He did not expect
man to glorify Him by continuing in a state of holiness.

Yet God in no way compelled man to fall. He simply withheld that
undeserved constraining grace with which Adam would infallibly not have
fallen, which grace He was under no obligation to bestow. In respect to
himself, Adam might have stood had he so chosen; but in respect to God
it was certain that he would fall. He acted as freely as if there had
been no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there had been no liberty.
The Jews, so far as their own free agency was concerned, might have
broken Christ’s bones; yet in reality it was not possible for them to
have done so, for it was written, “A bone of Him shall not be broken,”
Ps. 34:20; John 19:36. God’s decree does not take away man’s liberty;
and in the fall Adam freely exercised the natural emotions of his will.

The reason for the fall is assigned in that “God hath shut up all unto
disobedience, that He might have mercy on all,” Rom. 11:32; and again,
“We ourselves have had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we
should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead,” II
Cor. 1:9; and it would be difficult to find language which would assert
the Divine control and Divine initiative more explicitly than this. For
wise reasons, God was pleased to permit our first parents to be tempted
and to fall, and then to overrule their sin for His own glory. Yet this
permission and overruling of sin does not make Him the author of it. It
seems that He has permitted the fall in order to show what free will
would do; and then, by overruling it, He has shown what the blessings
of His grace and the judgments of His justice can do.

It may be well just at this point, to say something more about the
nature of the fall. Adam was given a most favorable opportunity to
secure eternal life and blessedness for himself and his posterity. He
was created holy and was placed in a world free from sin. He was
surrounded by all the beauty of paradise and was graciously given
permission to eat of all the fruits with the exception of one, which
was certainly no irksome restraint. God Himself came down into the
Garden and was Adam’s companion. In unmistakably clear language Adam
was warned that if he did eat of the fruit he would certainly die. He
was thus placed under a pure test of obedience, since the eating would
not in itself have been either morally right or wrong. Obedience is
here set up as the virtue which, in the rational creature, is, as it
were, the mother and guardian of all the others.

4. THE RESULT OF ADAM’S FALL

But, in spite of all his advantages, Adam deliberately disobeyed, and
the threatened sentence of death was executed. This plainly includes
more than the dissolution of the body. The word “death” as used in the
Scriptures in reference to the effects of sin includes any and every
form of evil which is inflicted in punishment of sin. It means
primarily spiritual death, or separation from God, which is both
temporal and eternal–a loss of His favor in all ways. It meant the
opposite of the reward promised, which was blessed and eternal life in
Heaven. It meant, therefore, the eternal miseries of hell, together
with the fore-tastes of those miseries which are felt in this life. Its
nature can be partly seen in the effects of sin which have actually
fallen upon the human race. And finally, the nature of the death which
fell upon Adam and his descendants can be seen by contrast with the
life which the redeemed have with Christ. It was a death which caused
sin instead of holiness to become man’s natural element, so that now in
his unregenerate nature the gospel and all holy things are repulsive to
him. He is as uterly unable to appreciate redemption through faith in
Christ, as a dead man is to hear the sounds of this world. That the
death threatened was not primarily physical death is shown by the fact
that Adam lived many years after the fall, while spiritually he was
immediately alienated from God and was cast out of Paradise. In his
fallen state man is terrified by any appearance of the supernatural.
And even in regard to physical death, that was also in a sense
immediately executed; for though our first parents lived many years,
they immediately began to grow old. Since the fall, life has become an
unceasing march toward the grave. Says Charles Hodge, “In the day in
which Adam ate the forbidden fruit he did die. The penalty threatened
was not a momentary infliction but permanent subjection to all the
evils which flow from the righteous displeasure of God.” [111]

Furthermore, the whole Christian world has believed that in the fall,
Adam, as the natural and federal head of the race, injured not only
himself but all of his posterity, so that, as Dr. Hodge says, “in
virtue of the union, federal and natural, between Adam and his
posterity, his sin, although not their act, is so imputed to them that
it is the judicial ground of the penalty threatened against him coming
also on them . . . To impute sin, in Scriptural and theological
language, is to impute the guilt of sin. And by guilt is meant not
criminality, or moral ill-desert, or demerit, much less moral
pollution, but the judicial obligation to satisfy justice,” [112] His
sin is laid to their account. Even infants, who have no personal sin of
their own, suffer pain and death. Now the Scriptures uniformly
represent suffering and death as the wages of sin. It would be unjust
for God to execute the penalty on those who are not guilty. Since the
penalty falls on infants, they must be guilty; and since they have not
personally committed sin, they must be guilty of Adam’s sin. All those
who have inherited human nature from Adam were in him as the fruit in
the germ, and have, as it were, grown up one person with him. By the
fall Adam was entirely and absolutely ruined. The state of original
righteousness or holiness in which he was created was lost and its
place was taken by an overwhelming state of sin, which was brought
about as effectively as one puncture of the eye involves the person in
perpetual darkness. The wrath and curse of God rested upon him and he
was possessed with a sense of guilt, shame, pollution, degradation, a
dread of punishment, and a desire to escape from the presence of God.

In fact, there is a strict parallel between the way in which the guilt
of Adam is imputed to us and that in which the righteousness of Christ
is imputed to us, so that the one illustrates the other, We were cursed
through Adam and were redeemed through Christ, although we were of
course no more personally guilty of Adam’s sin than we are personally
meritorious because of Christ’s righteousness. It is utterly absurd to
hold to salvation through Christ unless we also hold to damnation
through Adam, for Christianity is based on this representative
principle. Unless the race had been cursed through Adam, there would
have been no occasion for Christ to have redeemed it. The history of
the fall, recorded in a manner at once profound and childlike in the
third chapter of Genesis, has, therefore, universal significance. And
Calvinism alone does justice to the idea of the organic unity of the
human race, and to the profound parallel which Paul draws between the
first and the second Adam.

5. THE FORCES OF EVIL ARE UNDER GOD’S PERFECT CONTROL

We believe that God actually rules in the affairs of men, that His
decrees are absolute, and that they include all events. Consequently we
believe that nations and individuals are predestined to all of every
kind of good and evil which befalls them. When we get the larger view
we see that even the sinful acts of men have their place in the divine
plan, and that it is only because of our finite and imperfect nature,
which does not comprehend all the relations and connections, that these
acts appear to be contrary to that plan. To illustrate this, when we
see the sheet music running through the player piano we readily
understand how it is used; but if we were to find the same paper apart
from the piano and had never seen it used, we might readily conclude
that it was only wrapping paper, and poor wrapping paper at that, for
it would be full of holes. Yet when it is put in its proper place it
produces the most beautiful music. Unless we do believe that God has
ordained the whole course of events, and that the courses he has
outlined for our individual lives are good ones, we are certain to
become discouraged in times of adversity. Like Jacob of old who in the
face of the apparent misfortunes immediately before meeting his
favorite son, Joseph, concluded, “All these things are against me,” we
may become discouraged when perhaps at that very time the Lord is
preparing great things for us.

The Scripture doctrine, as stated before, is that God restrains sin
within certain limits, that He brings good out of intended evil, and
overrules the evil for His own glory. Since God is infinite in power
and wisdom, sin could have no existence except by His permission. God
was free to create, or not to create; to create this particular
world-order, or one entirely different. All evil forces are under His
absolute control and could be blotted out of existence in an instant if
He so willed. The murderer is kept in life and is indebted to God for
the strength to kill his victim, and also for the opportunity. When
Jesus said, “Get thee hence, Satan,” Satan immediately went; and when
Jesus commanded the evil spirits to hold their peace and come out of
the possessed persons, they immediately obeyed. The psalmist expressed
his confidence in God’s power to overrule sinners when contemplating
their works, he wrote, “He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh; the
Lord ‘will have them in derision,” 2: 4. Job said, “The deceived and
the deceiver are His,” 12:16; by which he meant that both good and evil
men are under God’s providential control.

Unless sin occurs according to the divine purpose and permission of
God, it occurs by chance. Evil then becomes an independent and
uncontrollable principle and the pagan idea of dualism is introduced
into the theory of the universe. The doctrine that there are powers of
sin, rebellion, and darkness in the very nature of free agency, which
may prove an over-match for divine omnipotence, imperils even the
eternal safety and happiness of the saints in glory.

Luther expressed his belief concerning this question in the following
words: “What I assert and contend for is this:–that God, where He
operates without the grace of His Spirit, works all in all, even in the
ungodly; and He alone moves, acts on, and carries along by the motion
of His omnipotence, all those things ‘which He alone has created, which
motion those things can neither avoid nor change, but of necessity
follow and obey, each one according to the measure of power given of
God:–thus all things, even the ungodly co-operate with God.” [113] And
Zanchius wrote, “We should, therefore, be careful not to give up the
omnipotence of God under a pretense of exalting His holiness; He is
infinite in both, and therefore neither should be set aside or
obscured. To say that God absolutely nills the being and commission of
sin, while experience convinces us that sin is acted every day, is to
represent the Deity as a weak, impotent being who would fain have
things go otherwise than they do, but cannot accomplish His desire.”
[114]

One of the best of more recent comments is that of E. W. Smith in his
admirable little book, “The Creed of Presbyterians.” “Did we believe
that so potent and fearful a thing as sin had broken into the original
holy order of the universe in defiance of God’s purpose, and is rioting
in defiance of His power, we might well surrender ourselves to terror
and despair. Unspeakably comforting and strengthening is the Scriptural
assurance of our Standards (V:4) that beneath all this wild tossing and
lashing of evil purposes and agencies there lies, in mighty and
controlling embrace, a Divine purpose that governs them all. Over sin
as over all else, God reigns supreme. His sovereign Providence
‘extendeth to the first fall and all other sins of angels and men,’ so
that these are as truly parts and developments of His Providence as are
the movements of the stars or the activities of unfallen spirits in
heaven itself. Having chosen, for reasons most wise and holy though
unrevealed to us, to admit sin, He hath joined to this bare permission
a ‘most wise and powerful bounding’ of all sin, so that it can never
overleap the lines which He has prescribed for its imprisonment, and
such an ‘ordering and governing’ of it, as will secure ‘His own holy
ends,’ and manifest in the final consummation not only His ‘almighty
Power,’ but His ‘unsearchable Wisdom” and His ‘infinite Goodness’” (p.
177).

And Floyd E. Hamilton has written: “God created the human being with
the possibility of sinning, and He has the power to interfere at any
time to prevent the evil act. Even though He has no purpose to work out
in the permission of the act the very permission of the act when He has
the power to interfere, places the ultimate responsibility for the act
squarely upon God. Moreover, if He has no purpose to work out, then He
is certainly reprehensible in not preventing the act! It is attempted
to avoid this conclusion by saying that God does not interfere because
to do so would be to take away manes freedom. In that case man’s
freedom is regarded as of more value than his eternal salvation! But
even that does not remove the ultimate responsibility for the
permission of the evil act from God; God has the power to prevent the
evil act, has no purpose to work out in permitting it, but
nevertheless, in order to protect man’s freedom, allows man to bring
eternal punishment upon himself! Assuredly that would be a poor kind of
a god!” [115]

Hence God Himself is ultimately responsible for sin in that He has
power to prevent it but does not do so, although the immediate
responsibility rests on man alone God is, of course, never the
efficient cause in the production of sin. Augustine, Luther and Calvin
often stressed this truth of God’s full and sovereign control when
proving that the present course of the world is the one which from
eternity God planned that it should follow.

6. SINFUL ACTS OCCUR ONLY BY DIVINE PERMISSION

The good acts of men then are rendered certain by the positive decree
of God, and the sinful acts occur only by His permission. Yet it is
more than a bare permission by which the sinful acts occur, for that
would leave it uncertain whether or not they would be done. Concerning
this subject David S. Clark says: “The most reasonable explanation is
that the sinful nature will go to the boundary set by the permission of
God; hence God’s bounding of sin renders certain what and how much will
come to pass. Satan could go no farther with Job than God permitted;
but it is certain that he would go as far as God allowed.” [116] And in
accordance with this is the statement of W. D. Smith: “When it is
known, certainly, that it will be done unless prevented, and there is a
determination not to prevent it, it is rendered as certain as if it
were decreed to be done by positive agency. In the one case, the event
is rendered certain by agency put forth; and, in the other case, it is
rendered equally certain by agency withheld. It is an unchangeable
decree in both cases. The sins of Judas, and the crucifixion of the
Saviour, were as unchangeably decreed, permissively, as the coming of
the Saviour into the world was decreed positively. From this you can
perceive the consistency of the Confession of Faith with common sense,
when it says, that ‘God from all eternity did, by the most wise and
holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably foreordain
whatsoever comes to pass,’ etc. You perceive, also, that this is
clearly reconcilable with the following sentiment, ‘He is not the
author of sin,’ etc.” [117]

Augustine expressed a similar thought when he said: “Wherefore those
mighty works of God, exquisitely perfect. according to every bent of
His will, are such that, in a wonderful and ineffable way, that is not
done without the will of God which is even done contrary to His will,
because it could not be done at all, unless He permitted it to be done;
and yet, He does not permit unwillingly, but willingly. Nor, as the God
of goodness, would He permit a thing to be done evilly, unless, as the
God of omnipotence, He could work good even out of the evil done.”
[118]

Even the works of Satan are so controlled and limited that they serve
God’s purposes. While Satan eagerly desires the destruction of the
wicked and diligently works to bring it about, yet the destruction
proceeds from God. It is, in the first place, God who decrees that the
wicked shall suffer, and Satan is merely permitted to lay the
punishment upon them. The motives which underlie God’s purposes and
those which underlie Satan’s are, of course, infinitely different. God
willed the destruction of Jerusalem; Satan also desired the same, yet
for different reasons. As Augustine tells us, God wills with a good
will that which Satan wills with an evil will,–as was the case in the
crucifixion of Christ, which was over-ruled for the redemption of the
world. Sometimes God uses the wicked wills and passions of men, rather
than the good wills of His own servants, to accomplish His purposes.
This truth has been very clearly expressed by Dr. Warfield in the
following words: “All things find their unity in His eternal plan; and
not their unity merely, but their justification as well; even the evil,
though retaining its quality as evil and hateful to the holy God, and
certain to be dealt with as hateful, yet does not occur apart from His
provision or against His will, but appears in the world which He has
made only as the instrument by means of which He works the higher
good.” [119]

7. SCRIPTURE PROOF

That this is the doctrine of the Scriptures is abundantly plain. The
sale of Joseph into Egypt by his brothers was a very wicked act; yet we
see that it was overruled not only for Joseph’s good but also for the
good of the brothers themselves. When it is traced to its source we see
that God was the author. it had its exact place in the divine plan.
Joseph later said to his brothers, “And now be not grieved nor angry
with yourselves, that ye sold me hither; for God did send me before you
to preserve life. . . . So now it was not you that sent me hither but
God. . . . And as for you, ye meant evil against me, but God meant it
for good,” Gen. 45:5, 8; 50:20. It is said that God hardened the heart
of Pharaoh, Ex. 4:21; 9:12; and the very words which God addressed to
Pharaoh were, “But in every deed for this cause have I made thee to
stand, to show thee my power, and that my name might be declared
throughout all the earth,” Ex. 9:16. And to Moses God said, “And I,
behold I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians and they shall go
(into the Red Sea) after them; and I will get me honor upon Pharaoh and
upon all his host, and upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen,” Ex.
14:17.

Shimei cursed David, because Jehovah had said, “Curse David”; and when
David knew this, he said, “Let him alone, and let him curse; for
Jehovah hath bidden him,” II Sam. 16:10, 11. And after David had
suffered the unjust violence of his enemies he recognized that “God
hath done all this.” Of the Canaanites it was said, “And it was of
Jehovah to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that
He might utterly destroy them, that they might have no favor, and that
He might destroy them, as Jehovah commanded Moses,” Josh. 11:20. Hophni
and Phinehas, the two evil sons of Eli, “hearkened not unto the voice
of their father, because Jehovah was minded to slay them,” I Sam. 2:25.

Even Satan and the evil spirits are made to carry out the divine
purpose. As an instrument of divine vengeance in the punishment of the
wicked an evil spirit was openly given the command to go and deceive
the prophets of King Ahab: “And Jehovah said, Who shall entice Ahab,
that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this
manner; and another on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and
stood before Jehovah, and said, I will entice him. And Jehovah said
unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying
spirit in the mouth of his prophets. And He said, Thou shalt entice
him, and shalt prevail; Go forth and do so. Now therefore (said
Micaiah), behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all
these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee,” I
Kings 22:20-23. Concerning Saul it is written, “an evil spirit from
Jehovah troubled him,” I Sam. 16:14. “And God sent an evil spirit
between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt
treacherously with Abimelech,” Judges 9:23. Hence it is from Jehovah
that evil spirits proceed to trouble sinners. And it is from him that
the evil impulses which arise in the hearts of sinners take this or
that specific form, II Sam. 24:1.

In one place we are told that God , in order to punish a rebellious
people, moved the heart of David to number them (II Sam. 24:1, 10); but
in another place where this same act is referred to, we are told that
it was Satan who instigated David’s pride and caused him to number them
(I Chr. 21:1). In this we see that Satan was made the rod of God’s
wrath, and that God impels even the hearts of sinful men and demons
whithersoever He will. While all adulterous and incestuous intercourse
is abominable to God, He sometimes uses even such sins as these to
punish other sins, as was the case when He used such acts in Absalom to
punish the adultery of David. Before Absalom had committed his sin it
was announced to David that this was the form which his punishment was
to take: “Thus saith Jehovah, Behold I will raise up evil against thee
out of thine own house; and I will take thy wives before thine eyes,
and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the
sight of the sun,” II Sam. 12:11. Hence these acts were not in every
way contrary to the will of God.

In I Chr. 10: 4 we read that “Saul took a sword and fell upon it.” This
was his own deliberate, sinful act. Yet it executed Divine justice and
fulfilled a divine purpose which was revealed years before concerning
David; for a little later we read, “So Saul died for his transgressions
which he committed against Jehovah. . . . He inquired not of Jehovah;
therefore He slew him and turned the kingdom unto David the son of
Jesse,” I Chr. 10:14. There is a sense in which God is said to do what
he permits or impels His creatures to do.

The evil which was threatened against Jerusalem for her apostasy is
described as directly sent of God, II Kings 22:20. The psalmist
recognized that even the hate of their enemies was stirred up by
Jehovah to punish a rebellious people, Ps. 105:25. Isaiah recognized
that even the apostasy and disobedience of Israel was in the divine
plan: “O Jehovah, why dost thou make us to err from thy ways, and
hardenest our hearts from thy fear?” Is. 63:17. In I Chr. 5:22 we read,
“There fell many slain, because the war was of Jehovah.” Rehoboam’s
foolish course which caused the disruption of the kingdom was “a thing
brought about by Jehovah,” I Kings 12:15. All of these things are
summed up in that passage of Isaiah, “I form the light, and create
darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I am Jehovah that doeth all
these things,” 45:7 and again in Amos, “Shall evil befall a city and
Jehovah hath not done it?” Amos 3:6.

When we come to the New Testament we find the same doctrine set forth.
We have already shown that the crucifixion of Christ was a part of the
divine plan. Though slain by the hands of lawless men who did not
understand the importance of the event which they were carrying out,
“The things which God foreshowed by the mouth of all the prophets, that
His Christ should suffer, He thus fulfilled,” Acts 3:18. The
crucifixion was the cup which the Father had given Him to drink, John
18:11. It was written, “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the
flock shall be scattered abroad,” Matt. 26:31. When Moses and Elijah
appeared to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, they spoke of “His
decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem,” Luke 9:31.
Concerning His own death Jesus said, “The son of man indeed goeth, as
it hath been determined; but woe unto that man through whom He is
betrayed,” Luke 22:22; again, “Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The
stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the
corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in your eyes?”
Matt. 21:42; and never did He teach more plainly that the cross was in
the divine plan than when in the garden of Gethsemane He said, “Not as
I will, but as thou wilt,” Matt. 26:39. Jesus deliberately surrendered
Himself to be crucified when He might have called to his defence “more
than twelve legions of angels,” had He chosen to have done so, Matt.
26:53. Pilate thought that he had power to crucify Jesus or to release
Him as he pleased; but Jesus told him he could have no power against
Him at all except it were given him from above, John 19:10, 11.

It was in the plan of God that Christ should come into the world, that
He should suffer, that He should die a violent death, and thus make
atonement for His people. Hence God simply permitted sinful men to
sinfully lay that burden upon Him, and overruled their acts for His own
glory in the redemption of the world. Those who crucified Christ acted
in perfect harmony with the freedom of their own sinful natures, and
were alone responsible for their sin. On this occasion, as on many
others, God has made the wrath of man to praise Him. It would be hard
to frame language which would more explicitly set forth the idea that
God’s plan extends to all things than is here used by the Scripture
writers. Hence the crucifixion on Calvary was not a defeat, but a
victory; and the cry, “It is finished,” announced the successful
achievement of the work of redemption which had been committed to the
Son. That which “stands written of Jesus in the Old Testament
Scriptures has its certain fulfillment in Him; and that enough stands
written of Him there to assure His followers that in the course of His
life, and in its, to them, strange and unexpected ending, He was not
the prey of chance or the victim of the hatred of men, to the marring
of His work or perhaps even the defeat of His mission, but was
following step by step, straight to its goal, the predestined pathway
marked out for Him in the counsels of eternity, and sufficiently
revealed from of old in the Scriptures to enable all who were not
‘foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have
spoken,’ to perceive that the Christ must needs have lived just this
life and fulfilled just this destiny.” [120]

Other events recorded in the New Testament also teach the same lesson.
When God cast off the Jews as a people it was not a purposeless
destruction, nor in order merely that “they might fall”; “but that by
their fall salvation might come to the Gentiles, to provoke them to
jealousy,” so that they in turn shall also embrace Christianity, Rom.
11:11. The blindness of one man is said to have been, not because of
his own or his parent’s sin, but in order to give Jesus a chance to
display His power and glory in restoring the sight, or, as the writer
puts it, “that the works of God should be made manifest in him,” John
9:3. The Old Testament statement that the very purpose which God had in
raising up Pharaoh was to show His power and to publish abroad his name
is repeated in Rom. 9:17. This general teaching is climaxed with Paul’s
declaration that “To them that love God all things work together for
good, even to them that are called according to His purpose.” Rom.
8:28.

No one can rationally deny that God foreordained sin if, as the
Scriptures assert, He foreordained the crucifixion of Christ, and these
other events to which we have referred. That sinful acts do have their
place in the divine plan is repeatedly taught. And if any persons are
inclined to take offence at this, let them consider how many times the
Scriptures declare the judgments of God to be a “great deep.” Hence
those who hastily charge that our doctrine makes God the author of sin,
bring that charge not only against us, but against God Himself; for our
doctrine is the clearly revealed doctrine of the Scriptures.

8. COMMENTS BY SMITH AND HODGE

God’s relation to sin is admirably illustrated in the following
paragraph which we shall take the liberty of quoting from W. D. Smith’s
little book, What Is Calvinism? “Suppose to yourself a neighbor who
keeps a distillery or dram shop, which is a nuisance to all
around–neighbors collecting, drinking, and fighting on the Sabbath,
with consequent misery and distress in families, etc. Suppose, further,
that I am endowed with a certain foreknowledge, and can see, with
absolute certainty, a chain of events, in connection with a plan of
operations which I have in view, for the good of that neighborhood. I
see that by preaching there, I will be made the instrument of the
conversion, and consequent reformation, of the owner of the distillery,
and I therefore determine to go. Now, in so doing, I positively decree
the reformation of the man; that is I determine to do what renders his
reformation certain and I fulfill my decree by positive agency. But, in
looking a little further in the chain of events, I discover, with the
same absolute certainty, that his drunken customers will be filled with
wrath, and much sin will be committed, in venting their malice upon him
and me. They will not only curse and blaspheme God and religion, but
they will even burn his house, and attempt to burn mine. Now, you
perceive that this evil, which enters into my plan, is not chargeable
upon me at all, though I am the author of the plan which, in its
operations, I know will produce it. Hence, it is plain, that any
intelligent being may set on foot a plan, and carry it out, in which he
knows, with absolute certainty, that evil will enter, and yet he is not
the author of the evil, or chargeable with it in any way. . . . In
looking a little further in the chain of events, I discover, that if
they be permitted they will take his life; and, I see, moreover, that
if his life be spared, he will now be as notorious for good as he was
for evil, and will prove a rich blessing to the neighborhood and to
society. . . . Therefore, upon the whole plan, I determine to act; and,
in so doing, I positively decree the reformation of that man, and the
consequent good; and I permissively decree the wicked actions of the
others; yet, it is very plain, that I am not in any way, chargeable for
their sins. Now, in one or the other of these ways, God ‘has
foreordained whatsoever comes to pass’” (P. 33-35).

And Charles Hodge says in this connection: “A righteous judge, in
pronouncing sentence on a criminal, may be sure that he will cause
wicked and bitter feelings in the criminal’s mind, or in the hearts of
his friends, and yet the judge be guiltless. A father, in excluding a
reprobate son from his family, may see that the inevitable consequences
of such exclusion will be his greater wickedness, and yet the father
may do right. It is the certain consequence of God’s leaving the fallen
angels and the finally impenitent to themselves, that they will
continue in sin, and yet the holiness of God remain untarnished. The
Bible clearly teaches that God judicially abandons men to their sins,
giving them up to a reprobate mind, and He therein is most just and
holy. It is not true, therefore, that an agent is responsible for all
the certain consequences of his acts. It may be, and doubtless is,
infinitely wise and just in God to permit the occurrence of sin, and to
adopt a plan of which sin is a certain consequence or element; yet, as
He neither causes sin, nor tempts men to its commission, He is neither
its author nor approver.” [121]

9. GOD’S GRACE IS MORE DEEPLY APPRECIATED AFTER THE PERSON HAS BEEN THE VICTIM
OF SIN

We are often permitted to fall into sin, that, after being delivered
from it, we shall appreciate our salvation all the more. In the parable
of the two debtors the one owed five hundred shillings and the other
fifty. When they had nothing with which to pay the lender forgave them
both. Which of them, therefore, would love him most? Naturally the one
to whom he forgave most. As Jesus spoke this parable they were seated
at meat and the application was made to Simon the Pharisee and to the
penitent woman who had anointed His feet. The latter had been forgiven
much and was profoundly grateful, but the former had received no such
favor and felt no gratitude. “To whom little is forgiven, the same
loveth little,” Luke 7:41-50.

Sometimes the person, like the prodigal son, will not appreciate the
Father’s home nor respect His authority until he has experienced the
ravaging effects of sin and the pangs of hunger, sorrow and disgrace.
It seems that man with his freedom must, to a certain extent, learn by
experience before he is fully able to appreciate the ways of
righteousness and to render unquestioned obedience and honor to God. We
have quoted Paul’s statement to the effect that “God hath shut up all
unto disobedience, that He might have mercy on all,” Rom. 11:32, and
that the sentence of death was passed within us that we should not
trust in ourselves but only in God, II Cor. 1: 9. The creature cannot
adequately appreciate God’s mercy until he has been rescued from a
state of misery. After the lame beggar had been healed by Peter and
John at the door of the temple, he appreciated his health as never
before, and “entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping,
and praising God.” And after being delivered from the power and guilt
of sin, we appreciate God’s grace as we never could have otherwise. We
read that even our Lord Jesus Christ in His human nature was made
“perfect through sufferings,” although He was, of course, totally
separate from all sin.

10. CALVINISM OFFERS A MORE SATISFACTORY SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF EVIL THAN
DOES ANY OTHER SYSTEM

The real difficulty which we face here, is to explain why a God of
infinite holiness, power, and wisdom, would have brought into existence
a creation in which moral evil was to prevail so extensively; and
especially to explain why it should have been permitted to issue in the
everlasting misery of so many of His creatures. This difficulty,
however, bears not only against Calvinism, but against theism in
general; and while other systems are found to be wholly inadequate in
their explanation of sin, Calvinism can give a fairly adequate
explanation in that it recognizes that God is ultimately responsible
since He could have prevented it; and Calvinism further asserts that
God has a definite purpose in the permission of every individual sin
having ordained it “for His own glory.” As Hamilton says, “If we are to
accept theism at all, the only respectable kind is Calvinism.”
“Calvinism teaches that God not only knew what He was doing when He
created man, but that He had a purpose even in permitting sin.” And
what better explanation than this can be advanced by any one else who
believes that God is the Creator and Ruler of this universe?

In regard to the first fall of man, we assert that the proximate cause
was the instigation of the Devil and the impulse of his own heart; and
when we have established this, we, have removed all blame from God.
Paul tells us that God “dwelleth in the light which no man can approach
unto.” Our mental vision can no more comprehend His deep mysteries than
our unaided physical eyes can endure the light of the sun. When the
Apostle contemplated these things he broke forth, ‘O the depth of the
riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are
His judgments and His ways past tracing out!” And since our human
intellects cannot soar to such stupendous heights, it is ours to adore
with reverence, fear, and trembling, but not to explain, that mystery
which is too high and too deep for even the angels themselves to
penetrate. Let us remember also that along with this sin, God has
provided a redemption graciously wrought out by Himself; and no doubt
it is due to our limitations that we do not see this to be the
all-sufficient explanation. The decree of redemption is as old as the
decree of apostasy; and He who ordained sin has also ordained a way of
escape from it.

Since the Scriptures tell us that God is perfectly righteous, and since
in all of His acts upon which we are capable of passing judgment we
find that He is perfectly righteous, we trust Him in those realms which
have not yet been revealed to us, believing that He has solutions for
those problems which we are not able to solve. We can rest assured that
the Judge of all the earth will do right, and as His plan is more fully
revealed to us we learn to thank Him for that which is past and to
trust him for that which is future.

It avails nothing, of course, to say that God foresaw the evil but did
not include it in His plan,–for if He foresaw it and in spite of it
brought the world into existence, the evil acts were certainly a part
of the plan, although an undesirable part. To deny this foresight makes
God blind; and He would then be conceived of as working something like
the school boy who mixes chemicals in the laboratory not knowing what
may happen. In fact, we could not even respect a God who worked in that
manner. And furthermore, that view still leaves the ultimate
responsibility for sin resting upon God, for at least he could have
refrained from creating.

That the sinful acts of men have their place and a necessary place in
the plan is plainly seen in the course of history. For instance, the
assassination of President McKinley was a sinful act,–yet upon that
act depended the role which Theodore Roosevelt was to play as President
of the United States; and if that one link in the chain of events had
been otherwise, the entire course of history from that time to the end
of the world would have been radically different. The same is true in
the case of Lincoln. If God intended that the world should reach this
state in which we find ourselves today, those events were
indispensable. A moment’s consideration will convince us that all of
even the apparently insignificant events have their exact place, that
they start rapidly growing influences which soon extend to the ends of
the earth, and that if one of them had been omitted, say fifty years
ago, the world today would have been far different.

A further important proof that Paul taught the doctrine which
Calvinists have understood him to teach is found in the objections
which he put in the mouths of his opponents,–that it represented God
as unrighteous: “Is there unrighteousness with God?” Rom. 9:14; and,
that it destroyed man’s responsibility: “Thou wilt then say unto me,
Why doth He still find fault? For who withistandeth His will?” Rom.
9:19. These are the very objections which today, on first thought,
spring into men’s minds, in opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of
Predestination; but they have not even the least plausibility when
directed against the Arminian doctrine. A doctrine which does not
afford the least grounds for these objections cannot have been the one
that the Apostle taught.
__________________________________________________________________

[106] Tyler, Memoir and Lectures, p. 250-252.

[107] Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 357.

[108] The Secret Providence of God; reprinted it Calvin’s Calvinism, p.
240.

[109] Systematic Theology, I., p. 545.

[110] Theological Institutes, II., ch. 18.

[111] Systematic Theology, II., p. 120.

[112] id. P. 193.

[113] Bondage of the Will, p. 301.

[114] Predestination, p. 55.

[115] Article II, The Reformed Faith and the Presbyterian Church.

[116] A Syllabus of Systematic Theology, p. 103.

[117] What Is Calvinism, p. 32.

[118] Quoted in Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 290.

[119] Biblical Doctrines, article, Predestination, p. 21.

[120] Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, article, The Foresight of Jesus, p.
73.

[121] Systematic Theology, I., p. 547.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVIII

4. It Discourages All Motives to Exertion

1. The Means as well as the Ends are Foreordained. 2. Practical
Results.

1. THE MEANS AS WELL AS THE ENDS ARE FOREORDAINED

The objection that the doctrine of Predestination discourages all
motives to exertion, is based on the fallacy that the ends are
determined without reference to the means. It is not merely a few
isolated events here and there that have been foreordained, but the
whole chain of events, with all of their inter-relations and
connections. All of parts form a unit in the Divine plan. If the means
should fail, so would the ends. If God has purposed that a man shall
reap, He has also purposed that he shall sow. If God has ordained a man
to be saved, He has also ordained that he shall hear the Gospel, and
that he shall believe and repent. As well might the farmer refuse to
till the soil according to the laws disclosed by the light of nature
and experience until he had first learned what was the secret purpose
of God to be executed in His providence in regard to the fruitfulness
of the coming season, as for any one to refuse to work in the moral and
spiritual realms because he does not know what fruitage God may bring
from his labor. We find, however, that the fruitage is commonly
bestowed where the preliminary work has been faithfully performed. If
we engage in the Lord’s service and make diligent use of the means
which He has prescribed, we have the great encouragement of knowing
that it is by these very means that He has determined to accomplish His
great work.

Even those who accept the Scripture statements that God “worketh all
things after the counsel of His will,” and similar declarations to the
effect that God’s providence control extends to all the events of their
lives. know that this does not interfere in the slightest with their
freedom. Do those who make this objection allow their belief in the
Divine sovereignty to determine their conduct in temporal affairs? Do
they decline food when hungry, or medicine when sick, because God has
appointed the time and manner of their death? Do they neglect the
recognized means of acquiring wealth or distinction because God gives
riches and honor to whom He pleases? When in matters outside of
religion one recognizes God’s sovereignty, yet works in the exercise of
conscious freedom, is it not sinful and foolish to offer as an excuse
for neglecting his spiritual and eternal welfare the contention that he
is not free and responsible? Does not his conscience testify that the
only reason why he is not a follower of Jesus Christ is that he has
never been willing to follow Him? Suppose that when the palsied man was
brought to Jesus and heard the words, “Rise up and walk,” he had merely
replied, “I cannot; I am palsied!” Had he done so he would have died a
paralytic. But, realizing his own helplessness and trusting the One who
gave the command, he obeyed and was made whole. It is the same almighty
Saviour who calls on sinners dead in sin to come to Him, and we may be
sure that the one who comes will not find his efforts vain. The fact
is, that unless we regard God as the sovereign Disposer of all events,
who in the midst of certainty has ordained human liberty, we have but
little encouragement to work. If we believed that our success and our
destiny was primarily dependent on the pleasure of weak and sinful
creatures, we would have but little incentive to exertion.

“On his knees, the Arminian forgets those logical puzzles which have
distorted Predestination to his mind and at once thankfully
acknowledges his conversion to be due to that prevenient grace of God,
without which no mere will or works of his own would ever have made him
a new creature. He prays for that outpouring of God’s Spirit to
restrain, convince, renew, and sanctify men; for that divine direction
of human events, and overturning of the counsels and frustrating of the
plans of wicked men; he gives to the Lord glory and honor for what is
actually done in this regard, which implies that God reigns, that He is
the sovereign disposer of all events, and that all good, and all
thwarting of evil are due to Him, while all evil is itself due to the
creature. He recognizes the completeness of the divine foreknowledge as
bound up inseparably with the wisdom of His eternal purpose. His
prayers for assurance of hope, or his present fruition of it,
presuppose the faith that God can and will keep his feet from falling,
and heaven from revolt, and that His purpose forms such an infallible
nexus between present grace and eternal glory, that nothing shall be
able to separate him from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord.” [122]

Since the future events are hidden and unknown to us we should be as
industrious in our work and as earnest in the performance of our duty
as if nothing had been decreed concerning it. It has often been said
that we should pray as though everything depended on God, and work as
though everything depended on ourselves. Luther’s observation here was:
“We are commanded to work the more for this very reason, because all
things future are to us uncertain; as saith Ecclesiastes, ‘In the
morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand; for
thou knowest not which shall prosper, whether this or that, or weather
they both shall be alike good,’ Eccl. 11: 6. All things future, I say
are to us uncertain in knowledge, but necessary in event. The necessity
strikes into us fear of God that we presume not, or become secure,
while the uncertainty works in us a trusting that we sink not into
despair.” [123]

“The farmer who, after hearing a sermon on God’s decrees, took the
break-neck road instead of the safe one to his home and broke his wagon
in consequence, concluded before the end of the journey that he at any
rate had been predestinated to be a fool, and that he had made his
calling and election sure.” [124]

Some may be inclined to say, If nothing but the creative power of God
can enable us to repent and believe, then all we can do is to wait
passively until that power is exerted. Or it may be asked, If we cannot
effect our salvation, why work for it? In every line of human endeavor,
however, we find that the result is dependent on the co-operation of
causes over which we have no control. We are simply to make use of the
appropriate means and trust to the co-operation of the other agencies.
We do have the express promise of God that those who seek shall find,
that those who ask shall receive, and that to those who knock it shall
be opened. This is more than is given to the men of the world to
stimulate them in their search for wealth, knowledge, or position; and
more than this cannot rationally be demanded. He who reads and
meditates upon the word of God is ordinarily regenerated by the Holy
Spirit, perhaps in the very act of reading. “While Peter yet spake
these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word,”
Acts 10:44. Shakespeare makes one of his characters say: “The fault,
dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are
underlings,” (Julius Caesar, 1:2).

The sinner’s inability to save himself, therefore, should not make him
less diligent in seeking his salvation in the way which God has
appointed. Some leper when Christ was on earth might have reasoned that
since he could not cure himself, he must simply wait for Christ to come
and heal him. The natural effect, however, of a conviction of utter
helplessness is to impel the person to make diligent application at the
source from whence alone help can come. Man is a fallen, ruined, and
helpless creature, and until he knows it he is living without hope and
without God in the world.

2. PRACTICAL RESULTS

The genuine tendency of these truths is not to make men indolent and
careless, but to energize and stimulate them to redoubled efforts.
Heroes and conquerors, such as C�sar and Napoleon, have often been
possessed with a sense of destiny which they were to fulfill. This
sense steels the nerve, redoubles the courage, and fixes in of an
indomitable purpose to carry his work through to a successful finish.
Large and difficult objects can only be achieved by men who have
confidence in themselves, and who will not allow obstacles to
discourage them. “This idea of destiny once embraced,” says Mozley, “as
it is the natural effect of the sense of power, so in its turn adds
greatly to it. The person as soon as he regards himself as predestined
to achieve some great object, acts with so much greater force and
constancy for the attainment it; he is not divided by doubts, or
weakened by scruples or fears; he believes fully that he shall succeed,
and that belief is the greatest assistance to success. The idea of a
destiny in a considerable degree fulfills itself . . . . It must be
observed that this is true of the moral and spiritual, as well as of
the natural man, and applies to religious aims and purposes, as well as
to those connected with human glory.” [125]

E. W. Smith, in his valuable little book, “The Creed of Presbyterians,”
writes as follows: “The most comforting and ennobling is also the most
energizing of faiths. That its grim caricature, fatalism, has developed
in human hearts an energy at once sublime and appalling is one of the
common-places of history. The early and overwhelming onrush of
Mohammedanism, which swept the East and all but overthrew the West, was
due to its devotees’ conviction that in their conquests they were but
executing the decrees of Allah. Attila the Hun was upborne in his
terrible and destructive course by his belief that he was the appointed
‘Scourge of God.’ The energy and audacity which enabled Napoleon to
attempt and achieve apparent impossibilities was nourished by the
secret conviction that he was ‘the man of destiny.’ Fatalism has
begotten a race of Titans. Their energy has been superhuman, because
they believed themselves the instruments of a super-human power.

“If the grim caricature of this doctrine has breathed such energy, the
doctrine itself must inspire a yet loftier, for all that is energizing
in it remains with added force when for a blind fate, or a fatalistic
deity, we substitute a wise, decreeing God. Let me but feel that in
every commanded duty, in every needed reform, I am but working out an
eternal purpose of Jehovah; let me but hear behind me, in every battle
for the right, the tramp of the Infinite Reserves; and I am lifted
above the fear of man or the possibility of final failure.” (pp. 180,
181).

In an English newspaper, “The Daily Express,” of April 18, 1929, we
read the following concerning Earl Haig, who was Commander-in-Chief of
the British armies in the First World War, and who was a Scotsman and a
Calvinistic Presbyterian: “Most remarkable as regards Haig’s own
personality is the disclosure that this reserved, cold, formal man had
a profound faith, and in the greatest crises of the war believed
implicitly that help would come from above, and that he regarded
himself as the chosen of the Lord, the Cromwell who alone could smite
the foe. He was genuinely convinced that the position to which he had
now been called was one which he and he alone in the British Army could
fill. It was not conceit. There was no man who was less inclined to
over-estimate his own value or capacity; it was opinion based upon the
discernment of all the factors. HE CAME TO REGARD HIMSELF WITH ALMOST
CALVINISTIC FAITH AS THE PREDESTINATED INSTRUMENT OF PROVIDENCE FOR THE
ACHIEVEMENT OF VICTORY FOR THE BRITISH ARMIES. HIS ABUNDANT
SELF-RELIANCE WAS REINFORCED BY THIS CONCEPTION OF HIMSELF AS THE CHILD
OF DESTINY.”

The genuine tendency of these truths, then, as stated before, is not to
make men indolent and careless, nor to lull them to sleep on the lap of
presumption and carnal security, but to energize and to inspire
confidence. Both reason and experience teach us that the greater one’s
hope of success, the stronger becomes the motive to exertion. The
person who is sure of success in the use of appropriate means has the
strongest of incentives to work, while on the other hand, where there
is but little hope there will be but little disposition for one to
exert himself; and where there is no hope, there will be no exertion.
The Christian, then, who has before him the definite commands of God,
and the promise that the work of those who obediently and reverently
avail themselves of the appointed means shall be blessed, has the
highest possible motives for exertion. Furthermore, he is elevated and
inspired by the firm conviction that he himself is marked out for a
heavenly crown.

Who ever stated the doctrine of election more plainly or in more
forcible language than did the Apostle Paul? And yet who was ever more
zealous and more untiring in his labors than Paul? His theory made him
a missionary and impelled him to set forth Christianity as final and
triumphant. How cheering it must have been for him in Corinth to hear
the words, “Be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy peace; for I am
with thee, and no man shall set on thee to harm thee; for I have much
people in this city,” Acts 18:10. What greater incentive to action
could have been given him than this, that his preaching was the
divinely appointed means for the conversion of many of those people?
Notice, God did not tell him how many people He had in that city, nor
who the individuals were. The minister of the Gospel can go forward
confident of success, knowing that through this appointed means God has
determined to save a vast number of the human family in every age. In
fact, one of the strongest pleas for missions is that evangelism is the
will of God for the whole world; and only when one acknowledges the
sovereignty of God in every realm of life can he have the deepest
passion for the Divine glory.

The experience of the Church in all ages has been that this doctrine
has led men, not to neglect, nor to stolid unconcern, nor to rebellious
opposition to God, but to submission and to a sure trust in Divine
power. The promise given to Jacob that his posterity was to be a great
people did not in the least prevent him from using every available
means for protection when it looked as though Esau might kill him and
his family. When Daniel understood from the prophecies of Jeremiah that
the time for the restoration of Israel was at hand, he set himself
earnestly to pray for it (Dan. 9:2, 3). Immediately after it had been
revealed to David that God would establish his house, he prayed
earnestly for that very thing (II Sam. 7:27-29). Although Christ knew
what had been appointed for His people, He prayed earnestly for their
preservation (John, Ch. 17). And although Paul had been told that he
was to go to Rome and bear witness there, it did not in the least cause
him to be careless of his life. He took every precaution to protect
himself against an unfair trial by the Jerusalem mob, and against an
unwise voyage (Acts 23:11; 25:10, 11; 27:9, 10). The decree of God was
that all those on board the ship should be saved, but that decree took
in the free and courageous and skillful activity of the seamen. Their
freedom and responsibility were not in the least diminished. The
practical effect of this doctrine, then, has been to lead men to
frequent and fervent prayer, knowing that their times are in God’s
hands and that every event of their lives is of His disposing.

Furthermore, it may be said that so long as the sinner remains ignorant
of his lost and helpless condition, he remains negligent. Probably
there is not a careless sinner in the world who does not believe in his
perfect ability to turn to God at any time he pleases; and because of
this belief he puts off repentance, fully intending to come at some
more convenient time. Just in proportion as his belief in his own
ability increases, his carelessness increases, and he is lulled to
sleep on the awful brink of eternal ruin. Only when he is brought to
feel his entire helplessness and dependence upon sovereign grace does
he seek help where alone it is to be found.
__________________________________________________________________

[122] Atwater, article, Calvinism in Doctrine and Life; The
Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review, Jan. 1875, p. 84.

[123] Bondage of the Will, p. 287.

[124] Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 361.

[125] The Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, p. 41.
__________________________________________________________________

1. Difficulties Faced By All Systems. 2. God Is No Respecter of
Persons. 3. God Plainly Does Not Treat All People Alike; He Gives to
Some What He Withholds From Others. 4. God’s Partiality Is Partly
Explained By the Fact that He Is Sovereign and that His Gifts Are of
Grace.

1. DIFFICULTIES FACED BY ALL SYSTEMS

If all men are dead in sin, and destitute of the power to restore
themselves to spiritual life, why, it is asked, does God exercise His
almighty power to regenerate some, while He leaves others to perish?
Justice, it is said, demands that all should have an equal opportunity;
that all should have, either by nature or by grace, power to secure
their own salvation. It is to be remembered, however, that objections
such as these do not bear exclusively against the Calvinistic system.
They are urged by atheists against Theism. It is argued, If God is
infinite in power and holiness, why does He allow so much sin and
misery to exist in the world? And why are the wicked often allowed to
prosper through long periods of time, while the righteous often must
endure poverty and suffering?

It is plain enough that the anti-Calvinistic systems can offer no real
solutions for these difficulties. Admitting that regeneration is the
sinner’s own act, and that every man has sufficient ability and
knowledge to secure his own salvation, it remains true that in the
present state of the world only comparatively few are saved, and that
God does not interpose to prevent the majority of adult men from
perishing in their sins. Calvinists do not deny that these difficulties
exist; they only maintain that such problems are not peculiar to their
system, and they rest content with the partial solution of them which
is given in the Scriptures. The Bible teaches that man was created
holy; that he deliberately disobeyed the divine law and fell into sin;
that as a result of that fall Adam’s posterity come into the world in a
state of spiritual death; that God never pushes them into further sin,
but that on the contrary He exerts influences which should induce
rational creatures to repent and seek His sanctifying grace; that all
who sincerely repent and seek this grace are saved; and that by the
exercise of His mighty power, vast multitudes which otherwise would
have continued in their sin are brought to salvation.

2. GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS

A “respecter of Persons” is one who, acting as judge, does not treat
those who come before him according to their character, but who
withholds from some what is justly theirs and gives to others what is
not justly theirs–one who is governed by prejudice and sinister
motives, rather than by justice and law. The Scriptures deny that God
is a respecter of persons in this sense; and if the doctrine of
Predestination represented God as doing these things, we admit that it
would charge Him with injustice and that the objection would be fatal.

In the Scriptures God is said to be no respecter of persons, for He
does not choose one and reject another because of outward circumstances
such as race, nationality, wealth, power, nobility, etc. Peter says
that God is no respecter of persons because He makes no distinction
between Jews and Gentiles. His conclusion after being divinely sent to
preach to the Roman centurion, Cornelius, was, “Of a truth, I perceive
that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that
feareth Him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to Him,” Acts
10:35. Throughout their entire past history the Jews had believed that
they as a people were the exclusive objects of God’s favor. A careful
reading of Acts 10:1 to 11:18 will show what a revolutionary idea it
was that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles also.

Paul likewise says, “Glory and honor and peace to every man that
worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek; for there is no
respect of persons with God,” Rom. 2:10, 11. And again, “There can be
neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be
no male and female; for they all are one man in Christ Jesus.” Then he
adds that it is not those who are Jews externally, but those who are
Christ’s that are in the highest sense “Abraham’s seed,” and “heirs
according to the promise,” Gal. 3:28, 29. In Eph. 6:5-9 the slaves and
the masters are commanded to treat each other justly; for God, who is
the Master of both, is no respecter of persons; and likewise in Col.
3:25 the relations between fathers and children and between wives and
husbands are included. James says that God is no respecter of persons
because He makes no distinction between the rich and poor, nor between
those who wear fine clothing and those who are plainly dressed (2:1-9).
The term “person” in these verses signifies, not the inner man, or the
soul, but the outward appearance, which often carries so much influence
with us. Hence when the Scriptures say that God is no respecter of
persons they do not mean that He treats all people alike, but that the
reason for His saving one and rejecting another is not that one is a
Jew and the other a Gentile, or that the one is rich and the other
poor, etc.

3. GOD PLAINLY DOES NOT TREAT ALL PEOPLE ALIKE; HE GIVES TO SOME WHAT HE
WITHHOLDS FROM OTHERS

It is a fact that in His providential government of the world God does
not confer the same or equal favors upon all people. The inequality is
too glaring to be denied. The Scriptures tell us, and the experiences
of every day life show us, that there is the greatest variety in the
distribution of these,–and justly so, for all of these are of grace,
and not of debt. The Calvinist here falls back upon the experienced
reality of facts. It is true, and no argument can disprove it, that men
in this world find themselves unequally favored, both in inward
disposition and outward circumstances. One child is born to health,
honor, wealth, of eminently good and wise parents who train him up from
infancy in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and who afford him
every opportunity of being taught the truth as it is in the Scriptures.
Another is born to disease, shame, poverty, of dissipated and depraved
parents who reject and ridicule anddespise Christianity, and who take
care to prevent their child from coming under the influence of the
Gospel. Some are born with susceptible hearts and consciences, which
make lives of innocence and purity natural for them; others are born
with violent passions, or even with distinct tendencies to evil, which
seemingly are inherited and unconquerable. Some are happy, others are
miserable. Some are born in Christian and civilized lands where they
are carefully educated and watched over; others are born in complete
heathen darkness. As a general rule the child that is surrounded with
the proper Christian influences becomes a devout Christian and lives a
life of great service, while the other whose character is formed under
the influence of corrupt teaching and example lives in wickedness and
dies impenitent. The one is saved and the other is lost. And will any
one deny that the influences favorable to salvation which are brought
to bear upon some individuals are far more favorable than those brought
to bear upon others? Will it not be admitted by every candid individual
that if the persons had changed places, they probably would have
changed characters also?–that if the son of the godly parents had been
the son of infidels, and had lived under the same corrupting
influences, he would, in all probability, have died in his sins? In His
mysterious providence God has placed persons under widely different
influences, and the results are widely different. He of course foresaw
these different results before the persons were born. These are facts
which no one can deny or explain away. And if we are to believe that
the world is governed by a personal and intelligent Being, we must also
believe that these inequalities have not risen by chance or accident,
but through purpose and design, and that the lot of every individual
has been determined by the sovereign good pleasure of God. “Even
Arminians,” says N. L. Rice, “are obliged to acknowledge that God does
make great differences in the treatment of the human family, not only
in the distribution of temporal blessings, but of spiritual gifts
also,–a difference which compels them, if they would be consistent, to
hold the doctrine of election. . . . If the sending of the Gospel to a
people, with the divine influence accompanying it, does not amount to a
personal election, most assuredly the withholding of it from a people
amounts generally to reprobation.” [126]

Calvinists merely assume that in the dispensation of His grace God acts
precisely as He does in giving other favors. If it were unjust in
principle for God to be partial in the distribution of spiritual goods,
it would be no less unjust for Him to be partial in His distribution of
temporal goods. But as a matter of fact we find that in the exercise of
His absolute sovereignty He makes the greatest possible distinctions
among men from birth, and that He does so irrespective of any personal
merits both in the allotments of temporal goods and of the essential
means to salvation. Hence the statement that the Holy Spirit “divideth
to each one severally as He will,” I Cor. 12:11; and nowhere in
Scripture is it said that God is impartial in the communication of His
grace. In regard to His dealings with nations we find that God has
favored some much more highly than others,–namely, Israel in ancient
times, and Europe and America in modern times, while Africa and the
Orient have lain in darkness and under the curse of false
religions,–and this is a fact which all must admit.

Although the Jews were a small and disobedient people, God conferred
favors on them which He did not give to the other nations of the world.
“You only have I known of all the families of the earth,” Amos 3:2. “He
hath not dealt so with any nation; And as for His ordinances, they have
not known them,” Ps. 147:20. And again, “What advantage then hath the
Jew? Or what is the advantage of circumcision? Much every way: first of
all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God,” Rom. 3:1, 2.
These favors did not come because of any merits in the Jews themselves,
for they were repeatedly reproached for being “a stiff-necked and
rebellious people.” In Matt. 11:25 we read of a prayer in which Jesus
said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou
didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst
reveal them unto babes; yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy
sight.” In those words He thanked the Father for doing that very thing
which Arminians exclaim against as unjust and censure as partial.

If it be asked, Why does God not bestow the same or equal blessings
upon all people? we can only answer, that has not been fully revealed.
We see that in actual life He does not treat all alike. For wise
reasons known to Himself, He has given to some blessings to which they
had no claim thus making them great debtors to His grace–and has
withheld from others gifts which He was under no obligation to bestow.

There is, in fact, no single member of this fallen race who is not
treated by his Maker better than he deserves. And since grace is favor
shown to the undeserving, God has the sovereign right to bestow more
grace upon one subject than upon another. “The bestowment of common
grace upon the non-elect,” says W. G. T. Shedd, “shows that
non-election does not exclude from the kingdom of heaven by Divine
efficiency, because common grace is not only an invitation to believe
and repent, but an actual help toward it; and a help that is nullified
solely by the resistance of the non-elect, and not by anything in the
nature of common grace, or by any preventive action of God. The fault
or the failure of common grace to save the sinner, is chargeable to the
sinner alone; and he has no right to plead a fault of his own as the
reason why he is entitled to special grace.” [127]

If it be objected that God must give every man an opportunity to be
saved, we reply that the outward call does give every man who hears it
an opportunity to be saved. The message is: “Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ and thou shalt be saved.” This is an opportunity to be saved;
and nothing outside the man’s own nature prevents his believing. Shedd
has expressed this idea very well in the following words: “A beggar who
contemptuously rejects the five dollars offered by a benevolent man,
cannot charge stinginess upon him because after this rejection of the
five dollars he does not give him ten. Any sinner who complains of
God’s passing him by’ in the bestowment of regenerating grace after his
abuse of common grace, virtually says to the High and Holy one who
inhabits eternity, ‘Thou hast tried once to convert me from sin; now
try again, and try harder.’” [128]

A strong argument against the Arminian objection that this doctrine
makes God unjustly partial, is found in the fact that while God has
extended His saving grace toward fallen men, He has made no provision
for the redemption of the Devil and the fallen angels. If it was
consistent with God’s infinite goodness and justice to pass by the
whole body of fallen angels and to leave them to suffer the
consequences of their sin, then certainly it is consistent with His
goodness and justice to pass by some of the fallen race of men and to
leave them in their sin. When the Arminian admits that Christ died not
for the fallen angels or demons, but only for fallen men, he admits
limited atonement and in principle makes the same kind of a distinction
as does the Calvinist who says that Christ died for the elect only.

Men, with their limited and often mistaken knowledge, have no right to
censure God’s distribution of His grace. It would be as unreasonable to
charge Him with injustice for not having made all of His creatures
angels, and for not having preserved them in holiness as He did the
angels in heaven and as He had power to do, as to charge Him with
injustice for not having redeemed all mankind. It is as hard for us to
understand why He allows any to perish eternally, as for us to
understand why He saves some and not others. He plainly does not
prevent the perdition of those whom, beyond doubt, He has the power to
save. And if those who admit God’s providence say that He has wise
reasons for permitting so many of our race to perish, those who
advocate His sovereignty can say that He has wise reasons for saving
some and not others. It might as reasonably be argued that since God
punishes some, He should punish all; but no one goes to that extreme.

It may be admitted that from our human view-point it would seem more
plausible and more consistent with the character of God that sin and
misery should never have been allowed to enter the universe; or if,
when they had entered, provision had been made for their ultimate
elimination from the system, so that all rational creatures should be
perfectly holy and happy for eternity. There would be no end to such
plans if every person were at liberty to construct a plan of divine
operations in accordance with his oven views as to what would be wisest
and best. We are, however, shut up to the facts as they are found in
the Bible, in the providential workings about us, and in our own
religious experiences; and we find that only the Calvinistic system is
satisfied by these.

4. GOD’S PARTIALITY IS PARTLY EXPLAINED BY THE FACT THAT HE IS SOVEREIGN AND
THAT HIS GIFTS ARE OF GRACE

It cannot be said that God acts unjustly toward those who are not
included in this plan of salvation. People who make this objection
neglect to take into consideration the fact that God is dealing not
merely with creatures but with sinful creatures who have forfeited
every claim upon His mercy. Augustine well said: “Damnation is rendered
to the wicked as a matter of debt, justice and desert, whereas the
grace given to those who are delivered is free and unmerited, so that
the condemned sinner cannot allege that he is unworthy of his
punishment, nor the saint vaunt or boast as if he were worthy of his
reward. Thus, in the whole course of this procedure, there is no
respect of persons. They who are condemned and they who are set at
liberty constituted originally one and the same lump, equally infected
with sin and liable to vengeance. Hence the justified may learn from
the condemnation of the rest that that would have been their own
punishment had not God’s grace stepped in to their rescue.” And to the
same effect Calvin says, “The Lord, therefore, may give grace to whom
He will, because He is merciful, and yet not give it to all because He
is a just Judge; may manifest His free grace by giving to some what
they never deserve, while by not giving to all He declares the demerit
of all.”

“Partiality,” in the sense that objectors commonly use the word, is
impossible in the sphere of grace. It can exist only in the sphere of
justice, where the persons concerned have certain claims and rights. We
may give to one beggar and not to another for we do not owe anything to
either. The parable of the talents was spoken by our Lord to illustrate
the doctrine of the Divine sovereignty in the bestowment of unmerited
gifts; and the regeneration of the soul is one of the greatest of these
gifts.

The central teaching in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard is
that God is sovereign in the dispensation of His gifts. To the saved
and the unsaved alike He can say, “Friend, I do thee no wrong; . . . Is
it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Or is thine eye
evil, because I am good?” Matt. 20:13-15. It was said to Moses, “I will
have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on
whom I will have compassion”; and Paul adds, “So then it is not of him
that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. . .
. . So then He hath mercy on whom He will and whom He will He
hardeneth,” Rom. 9:15-18. He will extend mercy to some, and inflict
justice on others, and will be glorified by all. Just as a man may give
alms to some and not to others, so God may give His grace, which is
heavenly alms, to whom He pleases. Grace, from its own nature, must be
free; and the very inequality of its distribution demonstrates that it
is truly gratuitous. If any one could justly demand it, it would cease
to be grace and would become of debt. If God is robbed of His
sovereignty in this respect, salvation then becomes a matter of debt to
every person.

If ten men each owe a certain creditor one thousand dollars and he for
reasons of his own forgives the debts of seven but collects from the
other three, the latter have no grounds for complaint. If three
criminals are sentenced to be hanged for having committed murder and
then two of them are pardoned–perhaps it is found that they have
rendered distinguished service to their country in time of war–does
that render the execution of the third unjust? Plainly, No; for in his
case there is no intervening cause as to why he should not suffer for
his crime. And if an earthly prince may .justly do this, shall not the
sovereign Lord of all be allowed to act in the same manner toward His
rebellious subjects? When all mankind might have been punished, how can
God be charged with injustice if He punishes only a part of them?–and
that no doubt a comparatively small part.

Warburton gives a very fitting illustration here. He supposes a case in
which a lady goes to an orphans’ home and from the hundreds of children
there, chooses one, adopts it as her own child and leaves the rest.
“She might have chosen others; she had the means to keep others; but
she chose one. Will you tell me that woman is unjust? Will you tell me
that she is unfair, or unrighteous, because in the exercise of her
undisputed right and privilege she chose out that one child to enjoy
the comforts of her home, and become the heir of her possessions, and
left all the others, possibly to perish in want, or sink into the
wretched condition of gutter-children? . . . Have you ever heard any
lay the charge of injustice, or of unrighteousness against the one who
has done such an action? Do men not rather hold such an action up to
praise? Do they not speak in the highest terms of the love, the pity,
and the compassion of such a person? Now why do they do this? Why do
they not condemn the taking of the one, and the leaving of the rest?
Why do they not complain that it was unjust for this particular one to
be chosen, and not another, or not all? . . . The reason is
this–because men know–as we also know–that all those children were
in exactly the same plight and that not one of them had a single claim,
or the least vestige of a claim, upon the person whose will and
pleasure it was to adopt one as her own . . . Do you, or can you, see
anything different in this act of God’s from that of my neighbor’s? The
children in that foundling home had no claim upon my neighbor. Neither
had fallen man any claim upon God; and God’s choice, therefore, just as
it was free and unmerited, so was it also righteous and just. And this
free and unmerited fore-choice of God in view of man’s self-procured
ruin, is all that is meant by the Calvinistic doctrine of
Predestination.”

Since the merits of Christ’s sacrifice were of infinite value, the plan
which usually first suggests itself to our hearts is that God should
have saved all. But He chose to make an eternal exhibition of His
justice as well as His mercy. If every person had been saved, it would
not have been seen what sin deserved; if no person had been saved, it
would not have been seen what grace could bestow. Furthermore, the fact
that salvation was provided, not for all, but only for some, makes it
all the more appreciated by those to whom it is given. All in all, it
was best for the universe at large that some should be permitted to
have their own way and thus show what a dreadful thing is opposition to
God.

But some one may ask, What about this unregenerate man, this one of the
non-elect who is left in sin, subject to eternal punishment, unable
even to see the kingdom of God? We reply, Go back to the doctrine of
original sin,–in Adam, who was appointed the federal head and
representative of all his descendants, the race had a most fair and
favorable opportunity to gain salvation, but lost it. The justification
for the election of some and the passing by of others is that “all have
sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Doubtless there are the
best of reasons for the choosing of some and the passing by of others,
but these have not been made known to us. We do know, however, that
none of the lost suffer any unmerited punishment. In this world they
enjoy the good things of providence in common with the children of God,
and very often in a much higher degree. Conscience and experience
testify that we are members of an apostate race, and every man who
comes short of eternal life knows that the responsibility rests
primarily upon himself. Furthermore, if all men are in their present
lost and ruined condition by the operation of just principles on the
part of God (and who will say that they are not?), they may justly be
left to deserved punishment. It is absurd to say that they are justly
exposed to eternal misery, and yet that it would be unjust for them to
suffer; for that is the same as saying that the execution of a just
penalty is unjust. It may also be added that man in his fallen state
has no desire for salvation, and that from this corrupt mass God “hath
mercy on whom He will and whom He will He hardeneth.” This is the
uniform teaching of Scripture. He who denies this denies Christianity
and calls in question God’s government of the world.

As a matter of fact all of us are partial. We treat the members of our
own family or our friends with great partiality, although at the time
we may know that they are no more deserving, or perhaps even less
deserving than are many others with whom we are associated. It does not
follow that if we grant favors to some, we must grant the same or equal
favors to all. Yet the Arminian absolutely prescribes it as a rule to
the Most High, that He ought to extend His bounty to all equally as
from a public treasury. “Should an earthly friend,” says Toplady, “make
me a present of ten thousand pounds, would it not be unreasonable,
ungrateful and presumptuous in me, to refuse the gift, and revile the
giver, only because it might not be his pleasure to confer the same
favor on my next door neighbor?”

Hence, then, to the objection that the doctrine of Predestination
represents God as “partial,” we answer, It certainly does. But we
insist that it does not represent Him as unjustly partial
__________________________________________________________________

[126] God Sovereign and Man Free, pp. 136, 139.

[127] Calvinism, Pure and Mixed, p. 59.

[128] Calvinism, Pure and Mixed, p. 51.
__________________________________________________________________

1. The Means as Well as the Ends are Foreordained. 2. Love and
Gratitude to God for What He Has Done for Us is the Strongest Possible
and Only Permanent Basis for Morality. 3. The Practical Fruits of
Calvinism in History are its Best Vindication.

1. THE MEANS AS WELL AS THE ENDS ARE FOREORDAINED

The objection is sometimes made that this system encourages men to be
careless and indifferent about their moral conduct and their growth in
grace, on the ground that their eternal welfare has already been
secured. This objection is primarily directed against the doctrines of
Election, and the Perseverance of the Saints.

This objection, however, like the one to the effect that this system
discourages all motives to exertion, is completely answered by the
great principle which we hold and teach, namely, that the means as well
as the ends are foreordained. God’s decree that the earth should be
fruitful did not exclude, but included, the sunlight, the showers, the
tillage of the husbandman, etc. If God has foreordained a man to have a
crop of corn, He has also foreordained him to plow and plant and
cultivate and to do all other necessary things to secure the crop. Just
as a purpose to build includes the hewing of stone, the squaring of
timbers, and the preparation of all other materials which enter into
the structure; and as a declaration of war implies arms, ammunition,
ships, and all other necessary equipment; so the election of some to
the eternal enjoyment of heaven includes their election to holiness
here. It is not the individual as such, but the individual as holy and
virtuous, that is predestinated to eternal life.

In the plainest of language Paul taught that the very purpose of
election is, “That we should be holy and without blemish before Him in
love,” Eph. 1:4; that we are “foreordained to be conformed to the image
of His Son,” Rom. 8:29; and that “God chose you from the beginning unto
salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth,” II
Thess. 2:13. “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” Acts
13:48. The predestinated, called, justified, glorified ones are the
same, Row. 8:29, 30. Therefore the purpose of God according to election
must stand, Rom. 9:11.

The belief of Calvinists concerning this subject is well expressed in
the Westminster Confession, where we read: “As God hath appointed the
elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of
His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are
elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually
called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are
justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith
unto salvation.” (III: 6).

“God decreed that fifteen years should be added to Hezekiah’s life;
this made him neither careless of his health, nor negligent of his
food; he said not, ‘Though I run into the fire, or into the water, or
drink poison, I shall nevertheless live so long’; but natural
providence, in the due use of means co-wrought so as to bring him on to
that period of time pre-ordained by him.” [129] Since all events are
more or less intimately connected, and since God works by means, if He
did not determine the means as well as the events, the certainty as to
the events themselves would be destroyed. In the redemption of man He
determined not only the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, but also
the faith, repentance and perseverance of all His people.

When this same doctrine was preached by Paul on another occasion and
this same objection was brought against it–namely, that he “made the
law of none effect through faith,” or in other words, that since we are
saved through faith we do not need to keep the moral law–his emphatic
reply was, “God forbid; nay, we establish the law,” Rom. 3 :31. There
is, then, an invariable connection established between eternal
salvation as an end, and faith and holiness as a means leading to that
end.

The ideal Christian, of course, would commit no sin at all. Though
certainly saved, he is saved for good works, and is commanded to “give
no occasion of stumbling in anything, that our ministration be not
blamed,” II Cor. 6:3. The Scriptures know of no perseverance which is
not a perseverance in holiness, and they give no encouragement to any
sense of security which is not connected with a present and ever
increasing holiness. Virtue and piety, therefore, are the effect and
not the cause of election, for which no cause is to be assigned except
God’s sovereign good pleasure. It is true that some become much more
advanced in holiness here and continue in that state over a much longer
period of time than do others; yet it is vain for any who do not
partake in some degree of holiness in this world to hope to enjoy
happiness in the next. All those whom God has designed to render
perfectly happy in eternity, He has designed to make in part happy in
this world; and as holiness is essential to the happiness of an
intelligent creature, so there is begun in them in this world that
holiness without which no one shall see the Lord.

2. LOVE AND GRATITUDE TO GOD FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR US IS THE STRONGEST
POSSIBLE AND ONLY PERMANENT BASIS FOR MORALITY

Those who make the objection that we are now considering assume that
believers–those who through the almighty power of God have been
brought from death to life, from sin to holiness; who have partially
beheld the love and glory of God as it is revealed in Christ–are still
incapable of being influenced by any motives except those which arise
from a selfish and exclusive regard to their own safety and happiness.
And, as Cunningham says, they do virtually make a confession, “first,
that any outward decency which their conduct may at present exhibit, is
to be traced solely to the fear of punishment; and, secondly, that if
they were only secured against punishment, they would find much greater
satisfaction in serving the Devil than in serving God; and that they
would never think of showing any gratitude to Him who had conferred the
safety and deliverance on which they place so much reliance.” [130]

The contrast between the Calvinistic and the Arminian basis for
morality is clearly stated in the following section from McFetridge:
“The two great springs by which men are moved are, on the one hand,
conviction and idea, on the other, emotion and sentiment; as these
control, so the moral character will be shaped. The man who is ruled by
convictions and ideas is the man of stability; he cannot be changed
until his conscience is changed; the man who is ruled by emotion and
sentiment is the man of instability. Now, the appeal of Arminianism is
chiefly to the sentiments. Regarding man as having the absolute free
moral control of himself, and as able at any moment to determine his
own eternal state, it naturally applies itself to the arousing of his
emotions. Whatever can lawfully awaken the feelings it considers
expedient. Accordingly, the senses, above all things, must be addressed
and affected. Hence the Arminian is, religiously, a man of feeling, of
sentiment, and consequently disposed to all those things which interest
the eye and please the ear. His morality, therefore, as depending
chiefly upon the emotions, is, in the nature of the case, liable to
frequent fluctuation, rising or falling with the wave of sensation upon
which it rides. Calvinism, on the other hand, is a system which appeals
to idea rather than sentiment, to conscience rather than emotion. In
its views all things are under a great and perfect system of divine
laws, which operate in defiance of feeling, and which must be obeyed at
the peril of the soul. . . . Its thought is not sentiment, but
conviction. . . . It makes the voice of God, speaking in the soul, a
guide in all conduct. It seeks rather to convince men than to fill them
with a transient sensation. Thus a deep sense of duty is the greatest
thing in the moral life of the Calvinist. His first and last question
is, Is it right? Of that he must first be convinced. Hence with him
conscience has the first place in all practical questions. . . . In the
Calvinistic conception God has marked out the way in which man is to
walk–a way which He will not change; and man is required to walk in
it, joyously or sorrowfully, with as much or as little sentiment as he
pleases. Hence the Calvinist is not, religiously, a man of
demonstrations, but rather a man of thoughtfulness; so that his
morality, whatever it may be otherwise, is characterized by stability
and strength, which may sometimes lapse into stubbornness and
harshness.” [131]

Our love to God would at best be only lukewarm if we believed that His
love and favor toward us depended only on our good behavior. His love
toward us is as an immense sun, which shone without beginning and which
will shine without end, while ours toward Him is, at its best, as only
a little flame. Hence the assurance that the objects of God’s love
shall never be permitted to fall away. Love which is founded on
self-interest is commonly recognized as not being moral in the highest
sense; yet Calvinism is the only system of faith which presents a
purely unselfish motive, namely the consciousness that it is alone the
free grace and unmerited love of God, to the exclusion of all human
merit, that saves men. When the Christian remembers that he was saved
only through the suffering and death of Christ his substitute, love and
gratitude overflow his heart; and, like Paul, he feels that the least
he can offer Christ in return is his whole life in loving service.
Seeing himself saved by grace alone, he learns to love God for His own
sake and finds it the joy of his life to serve Him with the whole
heart. Obedience becomes not only the obligatory but the preferable
good.

The motive which actuates the saints on earth is the same in principle,
though not so intense, as that which actuates the saints in glory,
whose constant delight is to perform the noblest actions and service,
namely, that of praising God, and punctually performing His will
without interruptions or defeats. “As they have always a ravishing
sense of His goodness to them, so they exercise their perfectly pure
minds in ascriptions of praise and glory to him for delivering them
from deserved ruin, and placing them in the blissful mansions where
they find themselves possessed of ease, delight, complacency, and glory
wholly unmerited.” [132]

Pure love and gratitude to God, and not selfish fear, is the very fuel
of acceptable obedience, and these are the elements from which alone
anything like high and pure morality will ever proceed. Jesus had no
fear that a sense of eternal security would lead to licentiousness in
His disciples, for He said to them, “Rejoice that your names are
written in heaven.” The elect, therefore, have the utmost reason to
love and glorify God which any beings can have, and it is a sheer
calumny to represent the doctrine of Predestination as tending to
licentiousness and as unfavorable to good morality.

3. THE PRACTICAL FRUITS OF CALVINISM IN HISTORY ARE ITS BEST VINDICATION

Calvinism answers the charge that it is unfavorable to good morality,
not merely by opposing reason against reason, but by putting facts of
world-wide reputation over against these fictitious claims. It simply
asks, What rival fruits can other systems oppose if we point to the
achievements of the Protestant leaders of the Reformation period, and
to the high moral earnestness of the Puritans? Luther, Calvin, Zwingli,
and their immediate helpers were all thorough-going “Calvinists,” and
the greatest spiritual revival of all time was brought about under
their influence. Those in England who held this system of faith were so
very strict regarding purity of doctrine, purity of worship, and purity
of daily life, that by their very enemies, who thus were their best
witnesses, they were called “Puritans.” The Puritans in England, the
Covenanters in Scotland, and the Huguenots in France, were men of the
same religious faith and of like moral qualities. That the system of
Calvin should have developed precisely the same kind of men in each of
these different countries is a proof of its power in the formation of
character.

Concerning the Puritans in this country McFetridge says: “Amongst all
the people in the American colonies, they (the Puritans, Calvinists of
New England) stood morally without peers. They were the men and the
women of conscience, of sterling convictions. They were not, indeed,
greatly given to sentimentalism. With mere spectacular observances in
religion they had no sympathy. Life to them was an experience too noble
and earnest and solemn to be frittered away in pious ejaculations and
emotional rhapsodies. They believed with all their soul in a just God,
a heaven and a hell. They felt, in the innermost core of their hearts,
that life was short and its responsibilities great. Hence their
religion was their life. All their thoughts and relations were imbued
with it. Not only men, but beasts also, were made to feel its favorable
influences. Cruelty to animals was a civil offense. In this respect
they were two centuries in advance of the bulk of mankind. They were
industrious, frugal and enterprising, and consequently affluence
followed in their path and descended to their children and children’s
children. Drunkenness, profanity and beggary were things little known
to them. They needed neither lock nor burglar-proof to secure their
honestly-gotten possessions. The simple wooden bolt was enough to
protect them and their wealth where honesty was the rule of life. As
the result of such a life they were healthy and vigorous. They lived
long and happily, reared large and devoted families, and descended to
the grave ‘like as a shock of corn cometh in his season,’ in peace with
God and their fellow-men, rejoicing in the hope of a blessed
resurrection.” [133]

It is further to be remembered as a diadem upon the brow of Calvinistic
morality, that in all the history of the Puritans there is said to have
been not one case of divorce. What a crying need there is for some such
influence today! Lawlessness in general was scarcely, if ever, more
unknown than among the Puritans. If, then, Calvinism was actually
unfavorable to morality, as charged, it would indeed be a strange
coincidence that where there has been the most of Calvinism there has
been the least of crime. “This is the problem,” says Froude, “Grapes do
not grow on bramble bushes. Illustrious natures do not form themselves
upon narrow and cruel theories. Spiritual life is full of apparent
paradoxes. . . . The practical effect of a belief is the real test of
its soundness. Where we find heroic life appearing as the uniform fruit
of a particular opinion, it is childish to argue in the face of fact
that the result ought to have been different.” [134]

“There is no system,” says Henry Ward Beecher, “which equals Calvinism
in intensifying, to the last degree, ideas of moral excellence and
purity of character. There never was a system since the world stood
which puts upon man such motives to holiness, or which builds batteries
which sweep the whole ground of sin with such horrible artillery. They
tell us that Calvinism plies men with hammer and with chisel. It does;
and the result is monumental marble. Other systems leave men soft and
dirty; Calvinism makes them of white marble, to endure forever.” [135]

Instead of being a system which leads to immorality and despair, it has
worked out exactly the opposite way in every-day life. No other system
has so fired people with ideals of religious and civil freedom, nor led
to such high ideals of morality and endeavor in all phases of human
life. Wherever the Reformed Faith has gone it has made the country to
blossom like the rose, even though it was a poor country like Holland,
or Scotland, or New England. This has been admitted by Macaulay and
many others, and is a very comforting thought.
__________________________________________________________________

[129] Ness, Antidote Against Arminianism, p. 41.

[130] Historical Theology, II., p. 279.

[131] Calvinism in History, pp. 107, 108.

[132] Walmsley, S. G. U. pamphlet No. 173, p. 67.

[133] Calvinism in History, p. 128.

[134] Calvinism, p. 8.

[135] Quoted by McFetridge, Calvinism in History, p. 121.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXI

7. It Precludes a Sincere Offer of the Gospel to the Non-Elect

1. The Same Objection Applies Against God’s Foreknowledge. 2. The Offer
Is Sincerely Made.

1. THE SAME OBJECTION APPLIES AGAINST GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE

Although the Gospel is offered to many who will not, and who for
subjective reasons cannot, accept, it is, nevertheless, sincerely
offered to all. The objection so strenuously urged on some occasions by
Arminians, to the effect that if the doctrine of Predestination is true
the Gospel cannot be sincerely offered to the non-elect, should be
sufficiently answered by the fact that it bears with equal force
against the doctrine of God’s Foreknowledge. We might ask, How can the
offer of salvation be sincerely made to those who God foreknows will
despise and reject it, especially when their guilt and condemnation
will only be increased by their refusal? Arminians admit that God knows
beforehand who will accept and who will reject the message; yet they
know themselves to be under a divine command to preach to all men, and
they do not feel that they act insincerely in doing so.

The difficulty, however, in both cases is purely subjective, and is due
to our limited knowledge and to our inability to comprehend the ways of
God, which are past finding out. We do know that the Judge of all the
earth will do right, and we trust Him even though our feeble reason
cannot always follow His ways. We know definitely that abundant
provision has been made for all who will come, and that every one who
sincerely accepts will be saved. From Christ’s own lips we have a
parable which illustrates the love of God for His children. The father
saw the returning prodigal when he was still a great way off, and ran
and fell on his neck and kissed him. And the welcome given to this
prodigal God is willing to give to any prodigal.

2. THE OFFER IS SINCERELY MADE

God commanded Moses to gather together the elders of Israel, to go to
Pharaoh and demand that they be allowed to go three days’ journey into
the wilderness to hold a feast and offer sacrifices. Yet in the very
next verse God Himself says, “I know that the king of Egypt will not
give you leave to go, no, not by a mighty hand,” Ex. 3:18,19. If it is
not inconsistent with God’s sincerity for Him to command all men to
love Him, or to be perfect (Luke 10:27; Matt. 5:48), it is not
inconsistent with His sincerity for Him to command them to repent and
believe the Gospel. A man may be altogether sincere in giving an
invitation which he knows will be refused. A father who knows that his
boys are going to do wrong feels constrained to tell them what is
right. His warnings and pleadings are sincere; the trouble is in the
boys.

Will any one contend that God cannot sincerely offer salvation to a
free moral agent unless in addition to the invitation He exerts a
special influence which will induce the person to accept it? After a
civil war in a country it often happens that the victorious general
offers free pardon to all those In the opposing army, provided they
will lay down their arms, go home, and live peaceable lives, although
he knows that through pride or malice many will refuse. He makes the
offer in good faith even though for wise reasons he determines not to
constrain their assent, supposing him possessed of such power.

We may imagine the case of a ship with many passengers on board sinking
some distance out from shore. A man hires a boat from a near-by port
and goes to rescue his family. Incidentally it happens that the boat
which he takes is large enough to carry all the passengers, so he
invites all those on the sinking vessel to come on board, although he
knows that many of them, either through lack of appreciation of their
danger, or because of personal spite toward him, or for other reasons,
will not accept. Yet does that make his offer any the less sincere? “If
a man’s family were with others held in captivity, and from love of
them and with the purpose of their redemption, a ransom should be
offered sufficient for the delivery of the whole body of captives, it
is plain that the offer of deliverance might be extended to all on the
ground of that ransom, although specially intended only for a part of
their number. Or, a man may make a feast for his own friends and the
provisions be so abundant that he may throw open his doors to all who
are willing to come. This is precisely what God, according to the
Calvinistic doctrine, has actually done. Out of special love to His
people, and with the design of securing their salvation He has sent His
Son to do what justifies the offer of salvation to all who choose to
accept it.” [136]

When the Gospel is presented to mankind in general nothing but a sinful
unwillingness on the part of some prevents their accepting and enjoying
it. No stumbling block is put in their way. All that the call contains
is true; it is adapted to the conditions of all men and freely offered
if they will repent and believe. No outside influence constrains them
to reject it. The elect accept; the non-elect may accept if they will,
and nothing but their own nature determines them to do otherwise.
“According to the Calvinistic scheme,” says Dr. Hodge, “the non-elect
have all the advantages and opportunities of securing their salvation,
that, according to any other scheme, are granted to mankind
indiscriminately. Calvinism teaches that a plan of salvation adapted to
all men and adequate for the salvation of all, is freely offered to the
acceptance of all, although in the secret purpose of God He intended
that it should have precisely the effect which in experience it is
found to have. He designed in its adoption to save His own people, but
consistently offers its benefits to all who are willing to receive
them. More than this no anti-Calvinist can demand.” [137]

Arminians object that God could not offer the Gospel to those who in
His secret counsel were not designed to accept it; yet we find the
Scriptures declaring that He does this very thing. His commands to
Pharaoh have already been referred to. Isaiah was commissioned to
preach to the Jews, and in 1:18, 19, we find that he extended a
gracious offer of pardon and cleansing. But in 6:9-13, immediately
following his glorious vision and official a ppointment, he is informed
that this preaching is destined to harden his countrymen to their
almost universal destruction. Ezekiel was sent to speak to the house of
Israel, but was told beforehand that they would not hear, Ezek. 3:4-11.
Matt. 23:33-37 presents the same teaching. In these passages God
declares that He does the very thing which Arminians say He must not
do. Hence the objection now under consideration has arisen not because
of any Calvinistic misstatement of the divine plan, but through
erroneous assumptions made by Arminians themselves.

The decree of election is a secret decree. And since no revelation has
been given to the preacher as to which ones among his hearers are elect
and which are non-elect, it is not possible for him to present the
Gospel to the elect only. It is his duty to look with hope on all those
to whom he is preaching, and to pray for them that they may each be
among the elect. In order to offer the message to the elect, he must
offer it to all; and the Scripture command is plain to the effect that
it should be offered to all. Even the elect must hear before they can
believe and accept, Romans 10:13-17. The attentive reader, however,
will perceive that the invitations are not, in the strict sense,
general, but that they are addressed to the “weary,” the “thirsty,” the
“hungry,” the “willing,” those who “labor and are heavy laden,” and not
to those who are unconscious of any need and unwilling to be reformed.
While the message is preached to all, it is God who chooses among the
hearers those to whom He is speaking, and He makes this selection known
to them through the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. The elect thus
receive the message as the promise of salvation, but to the non-elect
it appears only as foolishness, or if their conscience is aroused, as a
judgment to condemnation. As a rule, the non-elect are not concerned
about salvation, do not envy the elect their hope of salvation, but
rather laugh and scorn at them. And since the secret as to which ones
in the audience belong to the elect is hidden from the preacher,
usually he does not know who got the message to salvation and who got
it to judgment. Among the elect themselves there are so many
weaknesses, and on the other hand the evil one is so able to appear as
an angel of light and to make such an outward show of good deeds and
words, that the preacher usually cannot be sure of the outcome. The
effect of the preaching is not in the preacher’s hands, but in God’s
hands; and it often happens that the sermons which seemed unsuccessful
were strengthened and made effective by the Holy Spirit.

Yet while it is certain that the non-elect will not turn to God, repent
of their sins, and live good moral lives, it is, nevertheless, their
duty to do so. Though members of a fallen race, they are still free
moral agents, responsible for their character and conduct. God is,
therefore, perfectly consistent in commanding them to repent. For Him
not to do so would be for Him to give up the claims of His law. We
commonly hear the idea expressed that man is under no obligation to do
anything for which he has not full and perfect ability in himself. The
reasoning, however, is fallacious; for man labors under a self-acquired
inability. He was created upright and voluntarily sank himself into
sin. He is, therefore, as responsible as is the person who in order to
escape military service deliberately mutilates a hand or an eye. If
inability canceled obligation, then Satan with his inherent depravity
would be under no obligation to do right, and his fiendish enmity
toward God and men would be no sin. Sinners in general would then be
lifted above the moral law.

In conclusion it may be further said that even in regard to the
non-elect the preaching is not altogether vain; for they are thus made
the objects of general restraining and directing influences which
prevent them from sinning as much as they otherwise would.
__________________________________________________________________

[136] Hodge, Systematic Theology, II., p. 556.

[137] Systematic Theology, II., p. 644.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXII

8. It Contradicts the Universalistic Scripture Passages

1. The Terms “Will” and “All.” 2. The Gospel is for Jews and Gentiles
Alike. 3. The Term “World” is Used in Various Senses. 4. General
Considerations.

1. THE TERMS “WISH,” “WILL,” AND “ALL”

It may be asked, Is not the doctrine of Predestination flatly
contradicted by the Scriptures which declare that Christ died for “all
men,” or for “the whole world,” and that God wills the salvation of all
men? In 1 Tim. 2:3, 4 Paul refers to “God our Saviour, who would have
all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (And
the word “all,” we are dogmatically informed by our opponents, must
mean every human being.) In Ezek. 33:11 we read, “As I live, saith the
Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that
the wicked turn from his way and live”; and in II Peter 3:9 we read
that God is “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should
come to repentance.” The King James Version reads, “Not willing that
any should perish…”

These verses simply teach that God is benevolent, and that He does not
delight in the sufferings of His creatures any more than a human father
delights in the punishment which he must sometimes inflict upon his
son. God does not decretively will the salvation of all men, no matter
how much He may desire it; and if any verses taught that He decretively
willed or intended the salvation of all men, they would contradict
those other parts of the Scripture which teach that God sovereignly
rules and that it is His purpose to leave some to be punished.

The word “will” is used in different senses in Scripture and in our
every day conversation. It is sometimes used in the sense of “decree,”
or “purpose,” and sometimes in the sense of “desire,” or “wish.” A
righteous judge does not will (desire) that anyone should be hanged or
sentenced to prison, yet at the same time he wills (pronounced
sentence, or decrees) that the guilty person shall be thus punished. In
the same sense and foe sufficient reasons a man may will or decide to
have a limb removed, or an eye taken out, even though he certainly does
not desire it. The Greek words thelo and boulomai, which are sometimes
translated “will,” are also used in the sense of “desire,” or “wish;”
e.g., Jesus said to the mother of James and John, “What wouldest thou?”
Matt. 20:21; of the scribes it was said they “desire to walk in long
robes,” Luke 20:46; certain of the Scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus,
“Teacher, we would see a sign from thee,” Matt. 12:38; Paul said, “I
had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might
instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue,” I Cor.
14:19.

In like manner the word “all” is unmistakably used in different senses
in Scripture. In some cases it certainly does not mean every
individual; e.g., of John the Baptist it was said, “And there went out
unto him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they
were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins,” Mark
1:5. After Peter and John had healed the lame man at the door of the
temple, we read that “all men glorified God for that which was done,”
Acts 4:21. Jesus told his disciples that they would be “hated of all
men” for His name’s sake, Luke 21:17. Paul was accused of “teaching all
men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place” (the
temple), Acts 21:28. When Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from
the earth, will draw all men unto myself,” John 12:32, He plainly meant
not every individual of mankind, for history shows that not every
individual has been drawn to Him. He certainly does not draw the many
millions of heathens who die in utter ignorance of the true God. What
He meant was, that a large multitude from all nations and classes would
be saved; and this is what we see coming to pass. In Heb. 2:9, we read
that Jesus tasted death “for every man.” The original Greek, however,
does not use the word “man” here at all, but simply says, “for every.”
So in principle, if the meaning is not to be limited to those who are
actually saved, why limit it to men? Why not include the fallen angels,
even the Devil himself, and the irrational animals?

When it is said, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all
be made alive,” I Cor. 15:22, it must mean not absolutely all, but the
all in Adom and the all in Christ. Otherwise the verse would teach
absolute restorationism; for through all the writings of Paul, to be
“in Christ” means to be a Christian, to be saved; and plainly not all
men reach that state. The context also shows this, for there is no
reference to unbelievers in the whole chapter. If it were understood to
mean that Christ’s work was co-extensive with that of Adam, then one of
two results would be inevitable; viz: either that all men are saved, or
that all men are put in the same position which Adam occupied before
the fall; but each of these conclusions contradicts Scripture and
experience. The only possible conclusion is that Christ’s work was not
co-extensive with that of Adam; that Adam represented the entire human
race, but that Christ represented only those who are given Him by the
Father. The statement in II Cor. 5:15, that Christ “died for all,” is
perhaps to be explained by the fact that the epistle is written to “the
Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints that are in the
whole of Achaia,” and the “all” which Paul has in mind are those saved
Christians.

It was not the whole of mankind which was equally loved of God and
promiscuously redeemed by Christ. John’s hymn of praise, “Unto Him that
loves us, and loosed us from our sins by His blood; and made us to be a
kingdom, to be priests unto His God and Father,” evidently proceeds on
the hypothesis of a definite election and a limited atonement since
God’s love was the cause and the blood of Christ the efficacious means
of their redemption. The declaration that Christ died for “all” is made
clearer by the song which the redeemed now sing before the throne of
the Lamb: “Thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood
men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation,” Rev. 5:9; 1:5.
The word all must be understood to mean all the elect, all His Church,
all those whom the Father has given to the Son, etc., not all men
universally and every man individually. The redeemed host will be made
up of men from all classes and conditions of life, of princes and
peasants, of rich and poor, of bond and free, of male and female, of
young and old, of Jews and Gentiles, men of all nations, and races,
from north to south, and from east to west.

2. THE GOSPEL IS FOR JEWS AND GENTILES ALIKE

In some instances the word “all” is used in order to teach that the
gospel is for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews. Through the many
centuries of their past history the Jews had, with few exceptions, been
the exclusive recipients of God’s saving grace. They had greatly abused
their privileges as the chosen people. They supposed that this same
distinction would be kept up in the Messianic era, and they were always
inclined to appropriate the Messiah exclusively to themselves. So rigid
was the Pharisaic exclusivism that the Gentiles were called strangers,
dogs, common, unclean; and it was not lawful for a Jew to keep company
with or have any dealings with a Gentile (John 4:9; Acts 10:28; 11:3).

The salvation of the Gentiles was a mystery which had not been made
known in other ages (Eph. 3:4-6; Col. 1:27). It was for that reason
that Peter was taken to task: by the Church at Jerusalem after he had
preached the Gospel to Cornelius, and we can almost hear the gasp of
wonder in the exclamation of the leaders when after Peter’s defense
they said, “Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto
life,” Acts 11:18. To understand what a revolutionary idea this was,
read Acts 10:1-11:18. Consequently this was a truth which it was then
peculiarly necessary to enforce, and it was brought out in the fullest
and strongest terms. Paul was to be a witness “unto all men,” that is,
to Jews and Gentiles alike, of what he had seen and heard, Acts 22:15.
As used in this sense the word “all” has no reference to individuals,
but means mankind in general.

3. THE TERM “WORLD” IS USED IN VARIOUS SENSES

When it is said that Christ died “not for our sins only but for the
sins of the whole world,” I John 2:2, or that He came to “save the
world,” John 12:47, the meaning is that not merely Jews but Gentiles
also are included in His saving work; the world as a world or the race
as a race is to be redeemed. When John the Baptist said, “Behold the
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!” he was not giving a
theological discourse to saints, but preaching to sinners; and the
unnatural thing then would have been for him to have discussed Limited
Atonement or any other doctrine which could have been understood only
by saints. We are told that John the Baptist “came for a witness, that
he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through
him,” John 1:7. But to say that John’s ministry afforded an opportunity
for every human being to have faith in Christ would be unreasonable.
John never preached to the Gentiles. His mission was to make Christ
“manifest to Israel,” John 1:31; and in the nature of the case only a
limited number of the Jews could be brought to hear him.

Sometimes the term “world” is used when only a large part of the world
is meant, as when it is said that the Devil is “the deceiver of the
whole world,” or that “the whole earth” wonders after the beast,
Revelation 13:3. If in I John 5:19, “We know that we are of God, and
the whole world lieth in the evil one,” the author meant every
individual of mankind, then he and those to whom he wrote were also in
the evil one, and he contradicted himself in saying that they were of
God. Sometimes this term means only a relatively small part of the
world, as when Paul wrote to the new Christian Church at Rome that
their faith was “proclaimed throughout the whole world,” Rom. 1:8. None
but believers would praise those Romans for their faith in Christ, and
in fact the world at large did not even know that such a Church existed
at Rome. Hence Paul meant only the believing world or the Christian
Church, which was a comparatively insignificant part of the real world.
Shortly before Jesus was born, “There went out a decree from Caesar
Augustus that all the world should be enrolled,” . . . “and all went to
enroll themselves,” Luke 2:1, 3; yet we know that the writer had in
mind only that comparatively small part of the world which was
controlled by Rome. When it was said that on the day of Pentecost,
“there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation
under heaven,” Acts 2:5, only those nations which were immediately
known to the Jews were intended, for verses 9-11 list those which were
represented. Paul says that the Gospel was “preached in all creation
under heaven.” Col. 1:23. The goddess Diana of the Ephesians was said
to have been worshipped by “all Asia and the world,” Acts 19:27. We are
told that the famine which came over Egypt in Joseph’s time extended to
“all the earth,” and that “all countries came into Egypt to Joseph to
buy grain,” Gen. 41:57.

In ordinary conversation we often speak of the business world, the
educational world, the political world, etc., but we do not mean that
every person in the world is a business man, or educated, or a
politician. When we say that a certain automobile manufacturer sells
automobiles to everybody, we do not mean that he actually sells to
every individual, but that he sells to every one who is willing to pay
his price. We may say of one lone teacher of literature in a city that
he teaches everybody,–not that everybody studies under him, but that
all of those who study at all study under him. The Bible is written in
the plain language of the people and must be understood in that way.

Verses like John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that He gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish,
but have eternal life,” give abundant proof that the redemption which
the Jews thought to monopolize is universal as to space. God so loved
the world, not a little portion of it, but the world as a whole, that
He gave His only begotten Son for its redemption. And not only the
extensity, but the intensity of God’s love is made plain by the little
adverb “so,”–God so loved the world, in spite of its wickedness, that
He gave His only begotten Son to die for it. But where is the
oft-boasted proof of its universality as to individuals? This verse is
sometimes pressed to such an extreme that God is represented as too
loving to punish anybody, and so full of mercy that He will not deal
with men according to any rigid standard of justice regardless of their
deserts. The attentive reader, by comparing this verse with other
Scripture, will see that some restriction is to be placed on the word
“world.” One writer has asked, “Did God love Pharaoh? (Rom. 9:17). Did
He love the Amalekites? (Ex. 17:14). Did He love the Canaanites, whom
He commanded to be exterminated without mercy? (Deut. 20:16). Did He
love the Ammonites and Moabites whom He commanded not to be received
into the congregation forever? (Deut. 23:3). Does He love the workers
of iniquity? (Ps. 5:5). Does He love the vessels of wrath fitted for
destruction, which He endures with much long-suffering? (Rom. 9:22).
Did He love Esau? (Rom. 9:13).”

4. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Nor does the prophetic invitation, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come
ye to the waters,” Is. 55:1, and other references to the same effect,
contradict this view; for the majority of mankind are not thirsty but
dead, dead in sin, hopeless and willing servants of Satan, and in no
state to hunger and thirst after righteousness. The gracious invitation
to come to Christ is rejected, not because there is anything outside
their own person which prevents their coming, but because until they
are graciously given a new birth through the agency of the Holy Spirit
they have neither the will nor the desire to accept. It is God who
gives this will and excites this desire in those who are predestined to
life, Rom. 11:7, 8; 9:18. He that will, may come; but a person who is
completely immersed in heathenism, for instance, has no chance to hear
the Gospel offer and so cannot possibly come. “Faith cometh by
hearing;” and where there is no faith there can be no salvation.
Neither can that person come who has heard the Gospel but who is still
governed by principles and desires which cause him to hate it. He is a
bondservant to sin and acts accordingly. He that will may escape from a
burning building while the stairway is safe; hut he that is asleep, or
he that does not think the fire serious enough to flee from, hasn’t the
will, and perishes in the flames. Says Clark, “Arminians are fond of
quoting: ‘whosoever will let him come,’ or ‘Whosoever believeth,’
implying that belief and decision are wholly the acts of man, and that
this is an offset to sovereign election. True as these statements are
they do not touch the point at issue. Miles deeper down than this lies
the vital point; viz., how does a man become willing? If a man is
willing he can certainly choose; but the sinful nature averse to God
must be made willing, by God’s word, by God’s grace, by God’s Spirit,
or by sovereign intervention.” [138] Strictly speaking, these are not
divine offers indiscriminately made to all mankind, but are addressed
to a chosen people and are incidentally heard by others.

If the words of 1 Tim. 2:4, that God “would have all men to be saved,
and come to the knowledge of the truth,” be taken in the Arminian sense
it follows either that God is disappointed in His wishes, or that all
men without exception are saved. Furthermore, the doctrine which
imputes disappointment to Deity contradicts that class of Scripture
passages which teach the sovereignty of God. His will in this respect
has been the same through the centuries. And if He had willed that the
Gentiles should be saved, why was it that He confined the knowledge of
the way of salvation to the narrow limits of Judea? Surely no one will
deny that He might as easily have made known His Gospel to the Gentiles
as to the Jews. Where He has not provided the means we may be sure that
He has not designed the ends. The reply of Augustine to those who
advanced this objection in his day is worth quoting: “when our Lord
complains that though he wished to gather the children of Jerusalem as
a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but she would not, are we
to consider that the will of God was overpowered by a number of weak
men, so that He who was Almighty God could not do what He wished or
willed to do? If so, what is to become of that omnipotence by which He
did whatsoever pleased Him in Heaven and in? Moreover, who will be
found so unreasonable as to say that God cannot convert the evil wills
of men, which He pleases, when He pleases, and as He pleases, to good?
Now, when He does this, He does it in mercy; and when He doeth it not,
in judgment He doeth it not.” Verses such as 1 Tim. 2:4 it seems are
best understood not to refer to men individually but as teaching the
general truth that God is benevolent and that He does not delight in
the sufferings and death of His creatures. It may be further remarked
that if the universalistic passages are taken in an evangelical sense
and applied as widely as the Arminians wish to apply them, they will
prove universal salvation,–a result which is contradicted by
Scripture, and which in fact is not held by Arminians themselves.

As was stated in the chapter on Limited Atonement there is a sense in
which Christ did die for mankind in general. No distinction is made as
to age or country, character or condition. The race fell in Adam and
the race taken in the collective sense is redeemed in Christ. The work
of Christ arrested the immediate execution of the penalty of sin as it
related to the whole race. His work also brings many temporal and
physical blessings to mankind in general, and lays the foundation for
the offer of the Gospel to all who hear it. These are admitted to be
the results of His work and to apply to all mankind. Yet this does not
mean that He died equally and with the same design for all.

It is true that some verses taken in themselves do seem to imply the
Arminian position. This, however, would reduce the Bible to a mass of
contradictions; for there are other verses which teach Predestination,
Inability, Election, Perseverance, etc., and which cannot by any
legitimate means be interpreted in harmony with Arminianism. Hence in
these cases the meaning of the sacred writer can be determined only by
the analogy of Scripture. Since the Bible is the word of God it is
self-consistent. Consequently if we find a passage which in itself is
capable of two interpretations, one of which harmonizes with the rest
of the Scriptures while the other does not, we are duty bound to accept
the former. It is a recognized principle of interpretation that the
more obscure passages are to be interpreted in the light of clearer
passages, and not vice versa. We have shown that the evidence which is
brought forward in defense of Arminianism, and which at first sight
appears to possess considerable plausibility, can legitimately be given
an interpretation which harmonizes with Calvinism. In view of the many
Calvinistic passages, and the absence of any genuine Arminian passages,
we unhesitatingly assert that the Calvinistic system is the true
system.

This is the true universalism of the Scriptures–the universal
Christianization of the world and the complete defeat of the forces of
spiritual wickedness. ‘This, of course, does not mean that every
individual will be saved, for many are unquestionably lost. Just as in
the salvation of the individual much possible service to Christ is lost
and many sins are committed through the period of incomplete salvation,
so it is in the salvation of the world. A considerable number are lost;
yet the process of salvation is to end in a great triumph, and our eyes
are yet to behold “the glorious spectacle of a saved world.” The words
of Dr. Warfield are very appropriate here: “The human race attains the
goal for which it was created, and sin does not snatch it out of God’s
hands; the primal purpose of God with it is fulfilled; and through
Christ, the race of man, though fallen into sin, is recovered to God
and fulfills its original destiny.” [139]

So while Arminianism offers us a spurious universalism, which is at
best a universalism of opportunity, Calvinism offers us the true
universalism in the salvation of the race. And only the Calvinist, with
his emphasis on the doctrines of sovereign Election and Efficacious
Grace, can look to the future confidently expecting to see a redeemed
world.
__________________________________________________________________

[138] Syllabus of Systematic Theology, p. 208.

[139] The Plan of Salvation, p. 131.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 23

Salvation by Grace

1. Man’s Ill-desert. 2. God May Give or Withhold Grace as He Pleases.
3. Salvation not to be Earned by Man. 4. Scripture Proof. 5. Further
Remarks.

The Bible declares that the salvation of sinful men is a matter of
grace. From Eph. 1:7-10 we learn that the primary purpose of God in the
work of redemption was to display the glory of this divine attribute so
that through succeeding ages the intelligent universe might admire it
as it is made known through His unmerited love and boundless goodness
to guilty, vile, helpless creatures. Accordingly all men are
represented as sunk in a state of sin and misery, from which they are
utterly unable to deliver themselves. When they deserved only God’s
wrath and curse, He determined that He would graciously provide
redemption for them by sending His own eternal Son to assume their
nature and guilt and to obey and suffer in their stead, and His Holy
Spirit to apply the redemption purchased by the Son. On the same
representative principle by which Adam’s sin is imputed to us, that is,
set to our account in such a way that we are held fully responsible for
it and suffer the consequences of it, our sin in its turn is imputed to
Christ and His righteousness is imputed to us. This is briefly, yet
clearly expressed in the Shorter Catechism, which says, “Justification
is an act of God’s free grace, wherein He pardoneth all our sins, and
accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of
Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.” Ans. to Q. 88.

We should keep clearly in mind the distinction between the two
covenants: that of works, under which Adam was placed and which
resulted in the fall of the race into sin; and that of grace, under
which Christ was sent as a Redeemer. As stated in another connection,
the Arminian system makes no essential distinction in principle between
the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, unless it be that God
now offers salvation on lower terms and instead of demanding perfect
obedience He accepts only such faith and evangelical obedience as the
crippled sinner is able to render. In that system the burden of
obedience is still thrown upon man himself and his salvation in the
first place depends upon his own works.

The word “grace” in its proper sense means the free and undeserved love
or favor of God exercised toward the undeserving, toward sinners. It is
something which is given irrespective of any worthiness in man; and to
introduce works or merit into any part of this scheme vitiates its
nature and frustrates its design. Just because it is grace, it is not
given on the basis of preceding merits. As the very name imports, it is
necessarily gratuitous; and since man is enslaved to sin until it is
given, all the merits that he can have prior to it are bad merits and
deserve only punishment, not gifts, or favor. Whatever of good men
have, that God has given; and what they have not, why, of course, God
has not given it. And since grace is given irrespective of preceding
merits, it is therefore sovereign and is bestowed only on those whom
God has selected for its reception. It is this sovereignty of grace,
and not its foresight or the preparation for it, which places men in
God’s hands and suspends salvation absolutely on His unlimited mercy.
In this we find the basis for His election or rejection of particular
persons.

Because of His absolute moral perfection God requires spotless purity
and perfect obedience in his intelligent creatures. This perfection is
provided in Christ’s spotless righteousness being imputed to them; and
when God looks upon the redeemed He sees them clothed with the spotless
robe of Christ’s righteousness not with anything of their own. We are
distinctly told that Christ suffered as a substitute, “the just for the
unjust”; and when man is encouraged to think that he owes to some power
or art of his own that salvation which in reality is all of grace, God
is robbed of part of His glory. By no stretch of the imagination can a
man’s good works in this life be considered a just equivalent for the
blessings of eternal life. Benjamin Franklin, though by no means a
Calvinist, expressed this idea well when he wrote: “He that for giving
a drink of water to a thirsty person, should expect to be paid with a
good plantation, would be modest in his demands, compared with those
who think they deserve heaven for the little good they do on earth.” We
are, in fact, nothing but receivers; we never bring any adequate reward
to God, we are always receiving from Him, and shall be unto all
eternity.

2. GOD MAY GIVE OR WITHHOLD GRACE AS HE PLEASES

Since God has provided this redemption or atonement at His own cost, it
is His property and He is absolutely sovereign in choosing who shall be
saved through it. There is nothing more steadily emphasized in the
Scripture doctrine of redemption than its absolutely gracious
character. Hence, by their separation from the original mass, not
through any works of their own but only through the free grace of God,
the vessels of mercy see how great a gift has been bestowed upon them.
It will be found that many who inherit heaven were much worse sinners
in this world than were many others who are lost.

The doctrine of Predestination cuts down every self-righteous
imagination which would detract from the glory of God. It convinces the
one who is saved that he can only be eternally thankful that God saved
him. Hence in the Calvinistic system all boasting is excluded and that
honor and glory which belong to God alone is fully preserved. “The
greatest saint,” says Zanchius, “cannot triumph over the most abandoned
sinner, but is led to refer the entire praise of his salvation, both
from sin and hell, to the mere good-will and sovereign purpose of God,
who hath graciously made him to differ from that world which lieth in
wickedness.” [140]

3. SALVATION NOT TO BE EARNED BY MAN

All men naturally feel that they should earn their salvation, and a
system which makes some provision in that regard readily appeals to
them. But Paul lays the axe to such reasoning when he says, “If there
had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would
have been of the law,” Gal. 3:21; and Jesus said to His disciples,
“when ye shall have done all the things that are commanded of you, say,
We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty
to do,” Luke 17:10.

Our own righteousness, says Isaiah, is but as a polluted garment–or,
as the King James Version puts it, as filthy rags–in the sight of God
(64:6). And when Isaiah wrote, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye
to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea,
come, buy wine and milk without money and without price,” 55:1, he
invited the penniless, the hungry, the thirsty, to come and take
possession of, and enjoy the provision, free of all cost, as if by
right of payment. And to buy without money must mean that it has
already been produced and provided at the cost of another. The further
we advance in the Christian life, the less we are inclined to attribute
any merit to ourselves, and the more to thank God for all. The believer
not only looks forward to everlasting life, but also looks backward
into the antemundane eternity and finds in the eternal purpose of
divine love the beginning and the firm anchorage of his salvation.

If salvation is of grace, as the Scriptures so clearly teach, it cannot
he of works, whether actual or foreseen. There is no merit in
believing, for faith itself is a gift of God. God gives His people an
inward working of the Spirit in order that they may believe, and faith
is only the act of receiving the proffered gift. It is, then, only the
instrumental cause, and not the meritorious cause, of salvation. What
God loves in us is not our own merits, but His own gift; for His
unmerited grace precedes our meritorious works. Grace is not merely
bestowed when we pray for it, but grace itself causes us to pray for
its continuance and increase.

In the book of The Acts we find that the very inception of faith itself
is assigned to grace (18:27); only those who were ordained to eternal
life believed (13:48); and it is God’s prerogative to open the heart so
that it gives heed to the gospel (16:14). Faith is thus referred to the
counsels of eternity, the events in time being only the outworking.
Paul attributes it to the grace of God that we are “His workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that
we should walk in them,” Eph. 2:10. Good works, then, are in no sense
the meritorious ground but rather the fruits and proof of salvation.

Luther taught this same doctrine when he said of some that “They
attribute to Free-will a very little indeed, yet they teach us that by
that very little we can attain unto righteousness and grace. Nor do
they solve that question, Why does God justify one and leave another?
in any other way than by asserting the freedom of the will, and saying,
Because the one endeavors and the other does not; and God regards the
one for endeavoring, and despises the other for his not endeavoring;
lest, if he did otherwise, he should appear to be unjust.” [141]

It is said that Jeremy Taylor and a companion were once walking down a
street in London when they came to a drunk man lying in the gutter. The
other man made some disparaging remark about the drunk man. But Jeremy
Taylor, pausing and looking at him, said, “But for the grace of God,
there lies Jeremy Taylor!” The spirit which was in Jeremy Taylor is the
spirit which should be in every sin-rescued Christian. It was
repeatedly taught that Israel owed her separation from the other
peoples of the world not to anything good or desirable in herself, but
only to God’s gracious love faithfully persisted in despite apostasy,
sin, and rebellion.

Paul says concerning some who would base salvation on their own merits,
that, “going about to establish their own righteousness, they did not
submit themselves to the righteousness of God,” and were, therefore,
not in the Church of Christ. He makes it plain that “the righteousness
of God” is given to us through faith, and that we enter heaven pleading
only the merits of Christ.

The reason for this system of grace is that those who glory should
glory in the Lord, and that no person should ever have occasion to
boast over another. The redemption was purchased at an infinite cost to
God Himself, and therefore it may be dispensed as He pleases in a
purely gracious manner. As the poet has said:

“None of the ransomed ever knew,

How deep were the waters crossed,

Nor how dark was the night that the Lord passed through,

To find the sheep that was lost.”

4. SCRIPTURE TEACHING

Let us now notice some of those scriptures which teach that our sins
were imputed to Christ; and then notice some which teach that His
righteousness is imputed to us.

“Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did
esteem Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But He was wounded
for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the
chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are
healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to
his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all,” Is.
53: 4, 5. “By the knowledge of Himself shall my righteous servant
justify many, and He shall bear their iniquities. . . . He bare the sin
of many,” Is. 53:11, 12. “Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on our
behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in Him,” II Cor.
5:21. Here both truths are plainly stated,–our sins are set to His
account, and His righteousness to ours. There is no other conceivable
sense in which He could be “made sin,” or we “made the righteousness of
God.” It was Christ “who His own self bare our sins in His body upon
the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto
righteousness; by whose stripes we are healed,” I Peter 2:24. Here,
again, both truths are thrown together. “Because Christ also suffered
for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring
us to God,” I Peter 3:18. These, and many other such verses, prove the
doctrine of His substitution in our stead, as plainly as language can
put it. If they do not prove that the death of Christ was a true and
proper sacrifice for sin in our stead, human language cannot express
it.

That His righteousness is imputed to us is taught in language equally
plain. “By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His
sight. . . . But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath
been manifested . . . even the righteousness of God through faith in
Jesus Christ unto all them that believe . . . being justified freely by
His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set
forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in His blood, to show His
righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime,
in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of His righteousness
at this present season; that He might himself be just, and the
justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. Where then is the glorying?
It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay, hut by the law of
faith. We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from
the works of the law,” Rom. 3:20-28. “So then as through one trespass
the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act
of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of
life. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made
sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many he
made righteous,” Rom. 5:18, 19. Paul’s testimony in regard to himself
was: “I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but
refuse, that I may gain Christ, and be found in Him, not having a
righteousness of my own, even that which is of the law, but that which
is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by
faith,” Phil. 3:8, 9. Now, is it not strange that any one who pretends
to be guided by the Bible, could, in the face of all this plain and
unequivocal language, uphold salvation by works, in any degree
whatever?

Paul wrote to the Romans, “Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye
are not under law, but under grace.” 6:14. That is, God had taken them
out from under a system of law and had placed them under a system of
grace; and as their Sovereign, it was not His purpose to let them again
fall under the dominion of sin. In fact, if they were to fall, it could
only be because God had taken them out from under grace and again
placed them under law, so that their own works determined their
destiny. In the very nature of the case as long as the person is under
grace he is entirely free from any claim that the law may have on him
through sin. For one to be saved through grace means that God is no
longer treating him as he deserves but that He has sovereignly set the
law aside and that He saves him in spite of his ill-desert–cleansing
him from his sin, of course, before he is fit to enter the divine
presence.

Paul goes to great pains to make it clear that the grace of God is not
earned by us, is not secured by us in any way, but is just given to us.
If it be earned, it ceases by that very fact to be grace, Rom. 11:6.

5. FURTHER REMARKS

In the present state of the race all men stand before God, not as
citizens of a state, all of whom must be treated alike and given the
same “chance” for salvation, but rather as guilty and condemned
criminals before a righteous judge. None have any claim to salvation.
The marvel is, not that God doesn’t save all, but that when all are
guilty He pardons so many; and the answer to the question, Why does He
not save all? is to be found, not in the Arminian denial of the
omnipotence of His grace, but in the fact that, as Dr. Warfield says,
“God in His love saves as many of the guilty race of man as He can get
the consent of His whole nature to save.” [142] For reasons known to
Himself He sees that it is not best to pardon all, but that some should
be permitted to have their own way and be left to eternal punishment in
order that it may be shown what an awful thing is sin and rebellion
against God.

Time and again the Scriptures repeat the assertion that salvation is of
grace, as if anticipating the difficulty which men would have in coming
to the conclusion that they could not earn salvation by their own
works. Thus also they destroy the widespread notion that God owes
salvation to any. “By grace have ye been saved through faith; and that
not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man
should glory,” Eph. 2:8, 9. “But if it is of grace, it is no more of
works; otherwise grace is no more grace,” Rom. 11:6. “By the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified,” Rom. 3:20. “Now to him that
worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt,” Rom.
4:4. “Who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not
receive?” I Cor. 4:7. “By the grace of God I am what I am,” I Cor.
15:10. “Who hath first given to Him, and it shall he recompensed unto
him again?” Rom. 11:35. “The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ
Jesus our Lord,” Rom. 6:23.

Grace and works are mutually exclusive; and as well might we try to
bring the two poles together as to effect a coalition of grace and
works in salvation. As well might we talk of a “purchased gift,” as to
talk of “conditional grace,” for when grace ceases to be absolute it
ceases to be grace. Therefore when the Scriptures say that salvation is
of grace we are to understand that it is through its whole process the
work of God and that any truly meritorious works done by man are the
result of the change which has already been wrought.

Arminianism destroys this purely gracious character of salvation and
substitutes a system of grace plus works. No matter how small a part
these works may play they are necessary and are the basis of the
distinction between the saved and the lost and would then afford
occasion for the saved to boast over the lost since each had equal
opportunity. But Paul says that all boasting is excluded, and that he
who glories should glory in the Lord (Rom. 3:27; I Cor. 1:31). But if
saved by grace, the redeemed remembers the mire from which he was
lifted, and his attitude toward the lost is one of sympathy and pity.
He knows that but for the grace of God he too would have been in the
same state as those who perish, and his song is, “Not unto us, O Lord,
not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy and for thy
truth’s sake.”
__________________________________________________________________

[140] Predestination, p. 140.

[141] Bondage of the Will, p. 338.

[142] The Plan of Salvation, p. 93.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIV

Personal Assurance That One Is Among the Elect

l. Basis For Assurance. 2. Scripture Teaching. 3. Conclusion.

1. BASIS FOR ASSURANCE

All true Christians may and should know that they are among those who
have been predestinated to eternal life. Since faith in Christ, which
is a gift from God, is the means of salvation, and since this is not
given to any but the elect only, the person who knows that he has this
faith can be assured that he is among the elect. The mere presence of
faith, no matter how weak it may be, provided it is real faith, is a
proof of salvation. “As many as were ordained to eternal life (and they
only) believed,” Acts 13:48. Faith is a miracle of grace within those
who have already been saved–a spiritual token that their salvation was
“finished” on the cross, and certified on the resurrection morn. The
truly saved know that the love of God has been shed abroad in their
hearts and that their sins have been forgiven. In Pilgrim’s Progress we
read that when Christian’s sins were forgiven a heavy burden rolled
from his shoulders and that he experienced a great relief. Every
converted man should know that he is among the elect, for the Holy
Spirit renews only those who are chosen by the Father and redeemed by
the Son. “It is folly to fancy that a sincere lover of Jesus Christ who
trusts in Him as his Saviour and lovingly obeys Him as his Lord, can
possibly lack the election of God. It is only because he is one of
God’s elect that he can believe in Christ for the salvation of his
soul, and follow after Christ in the conduct of his life. . . . It is
impossible, that a believer in Christ should not be elected of God,
because it is only by the election of God that one becomes a believer
in Christ. . . . We need not, we must not, seek elsewhere for the proof
of our election. If we believe Christ and obey Him, we are His elect
children.” [143]

Every person who loves God and has a true desire for salvation in
Christ is among the elect, for the non-elect never have this love or
this desire. Instead, they love evil and hate righteousness in
accordance with their sinful natures. “Does a man do his duty to God
and his neighbor? Is he honest, just, charitable, pure? If he is, and
if he is conscious of the power to continue so, so far as he can depend
on this consciousness, so far he may reasonably believe himself to be
predestined to future happiness.” [144]

“We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love
the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death,” I John 3:14. “He
that is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him;
and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God,” I John 3:9. That is,
it is against his inner principles to commit sin. When he thinks deeply
and soberly about it, sin is repulsive to him and he hates it. Just as
a good American citizen does nothing which will be detrimental to his
country, so the true believer does nothing which injures the kingdom of
God. As a matter of practice, no one in this world lives a perfectly
sinless life; yet this is the ideal standard which he seeks to reach.

Says Dr. Warfield, “Peter exhorts us, II Peter 1:10, to make our
‘calling and election sure’ precisely by diligence in good works. He
does not mean that by good works we may secure from God a decree of
election in our behalf. He means that by expanding the germ of
spiritual life which we have received from God into its full
efflorescence, by ‘working out’ our salvation, of course not without
Christ but in Christ, we can make ourselves sure that we have really
received the election to which we make claim. . . . Good works become
thus the mark and test of election, and when taken in the comprehensive
sense in which Peter is here thinking of them, they are the only marks
and tests of election. We can never know that we are elected of God to
eternal life except by manifesting in our lives the fruits of
election–faith and virtue, knowledge and temperance, patience and
godliness, love of brethren. . . . It is idle to seek assurance of
election outside of holiness of life. Precisely what God chose His
people to before the foundation of the world was that they should be
holy. Holiness, because it is the necessary product, is therefore the
sure sign of election.” [145]

As Toplady says, “A person who is at all conversant with the spiritual
life knows as certainly whether he indeed enjoys the light of God’s
countenance, or whether he walks in darkness, as a traveler knows
whether he travels in sunshine or in rain.”

How may I know that I am among the elect? One may as well ask, How do I
know that I am a loyal American citizen, or how shall I distinguish
between white and black, or between sweet and bitter? Every one knows
instinctively what his attitude is toward his country, and the
Scriptures and conscience give as clear evidence of whether or not we
are among God’s people as white and black do of their color, or sweet
and bitter do of their taste. Every person who is already a child of
God should be fully conscious of the fact. Paul exhorted the
Corinthians, “Try your own selves, whether ye are of the faith; prove
your own selves. Or know ye not as to your own selves, that Jesus
Christ is in you? Unless indeed ye be reprobate,” II Cor. 13:5.

2. SCRIPTURE TEACHING

We have the assurance that “The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are children of God,” Rom. 8:16. “He that believeth on
the Son of God hath the witness in him,” I John 5:10. “And the witness
is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in His
Son. He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of
God hath not the life. These things have I written unto you, that ye
may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the
name of the Son of God,” I John 5:11-13. The born-again Christian
welcomes the Gospel in his heart, but the unregenerate push it off: “We
are of God: He that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God
heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of
error,” I John 4:6. “And hereby we know that He abideth in us, by the
Spirit which He gave us,” I John 3:24. “Because ye are sons, God sent
forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba, Father,’”
Gal. 4:6. The regenerated person instinctively recognizes God as his
Father. “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we
love the brethren,” I John 3:14. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the
Christ is born of God,” I John 5:1,–this means all who confess Him as
Lord–what blessed assurance! “Ye know that everyone that doeth
righteousness is born of Him,” I John 2:29. Those who hear and welcome
the Gospel are actuated by this inner saving principle.

“He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth
not the Son hath not life, but the wrath of God abideth on him,” John
3:36. “No man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema;
and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit,” I Cor.
12:3. By this we are taught that a truly saved person cannot cast Jesus
off and revile Him, and that anyone who looks to Jesus as the Lord and
his Lord, has been regenerated and is among the elect. This, then, is a
proof of his salvation. Each person knows what his attitude toward
Jesus is; and knowing this, he is able to judge whether or not he is
saved. Let each one ask himself this question, What is my attitude
toward Christ? Would I be glad for Him to appear and talk personally to
me this moment? Would I welcome Him as my Friend, or would I shrink
from meeting Him? Those who look forward with joy to the coming of
Christ may know that they are saved.

Since these certain marks of salvation are laid down in Scripture, a
person, by honestly examining himself, may know whether or not he is
among God’s people. And by the same rule he may with caution judge of
others; for if we see the external fruits of election in them and are
convinced of their sincerity, we may reasonably conclude that they are
elect. Paul had assurance concerning the Christians at Thessalonica,
for he wrote, “Knowing, brethren, beloved of God, your election, how
that our Gospel came not to you in words only, but also in power, and
in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance,” I Thess. 1:4, 5. He also
knew that God had chosen the Ephesians in Christ, for he wrote to them:
“He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should
be holy and without blemish before Him in love; having foreordained us
unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to
the good pleasure of His will,” Ephesians 1:4, 5.

3. CONCLUSION

But on the other hand we should not pronounce any living person to be
non-elect, no matter how sinful he may be at present; for even the
vilest person may, so far as we know, yet be brought to faith and
repentance by the Holy Spirit. The conversion of many of the elect is
still future. Hence no one has a right to declare positively that he or
any other person is among the non-elect, for he does not know what God
may have in store for him or them. We can, however, say that those who
die impenitent are certainly lost, for the Scriptures are explicit on
that.

We cannot say that every true Christian has this assurance; for it can
only properly arise from a knowledge of one’s own moral resources and
strength, and the one who underestimates himself may innocently be
without it. The Christian may at times become very discouraged because
of weak faith, but this does not prove him to be among the non-elect.
When faith is strengthened and erroneous views of salvation are cleared
up, it is the privilege and duty of every Christian to know himself
saved, and to escape that fear of apostasy which must constantly haunt
every consistent Arminian so long as he continues in this life. Hence,
while assurance is desirable and easily obtainable for any one who has
made some progress in the Christian way, it cannot always be made the
test of a true Christian.

Through the Scriptures God repeatedly gives us the promises that those
who come to Him in Christ shall in no wise be cast out, that whosoever
will may take of the water of life without money and without price, and
that he who asks shall receive. The grounds for our assurance, then,
are both within us and without us. If, therefore, any true believer
lacks the assurance that he is forever safe among God’s people, the
fault is in himself and not in the plan of salvation, or in the
Scriptures.
__________________________________________________________________

[143] Warfield, pamphlet, Election, p. 18.

[144] Mozley, The Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, p. 45.

[145] Pamphlet, Election, pp. 17, 18.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXV

Predestination in the Physical World

1. The Uniformity of Natural Law. 2. Comments by Noted Scientists and
Theologians. 3. The Calvinistic System Alone Harmonizes With Modern
Science and Philosophy.

1. THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURAL LAW

As far as the material universe apart from mind is concerned we have no
trouble at all to believe in absolute Predestination. The course of
events which would follow was, in a very strict sense, immutably
predetermined when God created the world and implanted the natural laws
of gravity, light, magnetism, chemical affinity, electrical phenomena,
etc. Apart from the interference of mind or miracle, the course of
nature is uniform and predictable.This has not only been admitted but
dogmatically held and asserted by many of the greatest scientists.The
atoms follow their exactly prescribed courses.The material objects we
handle are governed by fixed laws.If we have accurate knowledge of all
the factors involved, we can determine exactly what will be the effect
of a falling stone, an explosion, or an earthquake.The telescope
reveals to us millions of distant fiery suns, each of which follows an
exact, predetermined course, and their positions can be predicted for
thousands of years to come.

Within the solar system the planets and satellites swing perfectly in
their orbits, and eclipses can be predicted with exactness. Before the
eclipse of the sun in 1924 the astronomers announced the course which
the shadow of the moon would take across the earth and calculated the
time for certain cities down to the seconds, which calculation was
later shown by the eclipse to be in error only four seconds!

Astronomers tell us that the same principles which govern in our solar
system are also found in the millions of stars which are trillions of
miles away. Physicists analyze the light which comes from the sun and
from the stars and tell us that not only are the same elements, such as
iron, carbon, oxygen, etc., which are found on the earth also found on
them, but that these elements are found in practically the same
proportion there as here.

From the law of gravitation we learn that every material object in the
universe attracts every other material object with a force which is
directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the
square of the distance between their centers. Hence every grain of sand
in the desert or on the sea-shore is linked up with every sun in the
universe. The sluggish earth mounts upward to meet the falling
snowflake. The microscope reveals marvels just as wonderful as those
revealed by the telescope. God’s providence extends to the atoms as
well as to the stars and each one exerts its particular influence,
small but exact. Everywhere there is perfect order and God has slighted
His work nowhere.

2. COMMENTS BY NOTED SCIENTISTS AND THEOLOGIANS

Huxley once said that if man had possessed exact knowledge of natural
laws before the rise of plants and animals on the earth, he could have
predicted not only the geographical contour and climate of a given
region, but also the exact flora and fauna which would have been found
there,–arising, as he supposed, through the spontaneous generation of
life from non-living matter,–and while we do not accept his extreme
statement about the origin of life, this, nevertheless, gives us some
idea of the uniformity that a great scientist expects to find in the
laws of nature.

The writer was once in a discussion group conducted by Dr. H. N.
Russell, head of the Department of Astronomy in Princeton University,
and one of the outstanding astronomers of our time, in which Dr.
Russell declared that apart from the influence of mind in the world he
believed in an absolute predestination made effective through the fixed
laws of nature.

“The uniformity of the laws of nature,” says Dr. Charles Hodge, “is a
constant revelation of the immutability of God. They are now what they
were at the beginning of time, and they are the same in every part of
the universe. No less stable are the laws which regulate the operations
of the reason and conscience.” And again he says: “As in all these
lower departments of His work, God acts according to a preconceived
plan. It is not to be supposed that in the higher sphere of His
operations, which concern the destiny of men, everything would be left
to chance and allowed to take its undetermined course to an
undetermined end. We accordingly find that the Scriptures distinctly
assert in reference to the dispensations of grace not only that God
sees the end from the beginning, but that He works all things according
to the counsel of His will, or, according to His eternal purpose.”
[146]

Dr. Abraham Kuyper, who was admittedly one of the outstanding
theologians of the last century, tells us: “It is a fact that the more
thorough development of science in our age has almost unanimously
decided in favor of Calvinism with regard to the antithesis between the
unity and stability of God’s decree, which Calvinism professes, and the
superficiality and looseness, which the Arminians preferred. The
systems of the great philosophers are, almost to one, in favor of unity
and stability.” He goes on to say that these systems “clearly
demonstrate that the development of science in our age presupposes a
cosmos which does not fall a prey to the freaks of chance, but exists
and develops from one principle, according to a firm order, aiming at
one fixed plan. This is a claim which is, as it clearly appears,
diametrically opposed to Arminianism, and in complete harmony with
Calvinistic belief, that there is one supreme will in God, the cause of
all existing things, subjecting them to ordinances and directing them
towards a pre-established plan.” And again, he asks, What does the
doctrine of foreordination mean except that “the entire cosmos, instead
of being a plaything of caprice and chance, obeys law and order, and
that there exists a firm will which carries out its design both in
nature and in history?” [147]

3. THE CALVINISTIC SYSTEM ALONE HARMONIZES WITH MODERN SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

The Calvinistic world- and life-view, which so emphasizes the fixity
and certainty of the course of events, is thus in striking harmony with
modern Science and Philosophy. How preposterous is that claim which is
sometimes made, that no matter how clearly this doctrine of
Predestination is taught in the Scriptures, it is disproved by
established truth from other sources! That claim is made by many who
wish to establish a different system of theology. But any one who is at
all familiar with modern Science and Philosophy (with physiological
psychology, for example), with their emphasis on universally fixed
laws, knows that just the opposite is true. Witness the present day
emphasis on behaviourism, determinism, and heredity. And what is
Mendel’s law but Predestination in the realm of Genetics? The tendency
is strongly against the free and the contingent. The Universe is
conceived of as one systematic whole, interrelated in all of its parts,
and following a very definite, prearranged course. With a different
nomenclature and a different idea of the supernatural, the foremost
modern scientists and philosophers hold the Calvinistic view in regard
to the world as a unit. They may deny God’s freedom, or even His
personality, and their necessitarian metaphysics may be radically at
variance with the true doctrine of His providence and grace; they may
attempt to explain the thought processes of the brain, and even life
itself, by physical and chemical laws; yet their impression of the
co-ordinated facts of life and nature is thoroughly Calvinistic.

Without faith in the unity, stability, and order of things such as that
to which Predestination leads us, it is impossible for Science to go
beyond mere conjectures. Science is based on faith in the organic
inter-connection or unity of the universe, a firm conviction that our
entire lives must be under the sway of laws or principles established
by some extra-mundane Power or Creator. The more we learn about Science
the more clearly do we see the unity which underlies it all.

And when we come to study History we find that it is a “chain of
events.” Just as every grain of sand is related to every sun in the
universe, so every event has its exact and necessary place in the
unfolding of History. All of us remember comparatively insignificant
events which have changed the courses of our lives; and had one of
these links been omitted the result would have been radically
different. Often times a very small thing sets off a course of events
which convulses the world, as was the case in 1914 when a Serbian
conspirator fired a shot at the Archduke of Austria, and the World War
followed. Quite naturally many people have drawn back from attributing
all the free acts of men and angels, and especially their sinful acts,
to the foreordination of God. Nevertheless, if God is to rule the world
at all His plan and providential control must extend to all events, not
only in the natural world, but also in the realm of human affairs; and
the Scriptures plainly teach that the free acts of men and angels are
as certainly foreordained of God as are the events in the material
world.

This four-fold argument of Science, Philosophy, History, and sacred
Scriptures is not to be taken lightly. In Science, Philosophy, and
History the doctrine is reduced to the cold severity of impersonal
force. But when the radiant light of the glorious Gospel is thrown upon
this, showing that the racial choices, the personal elections, the
divine calls, are made by sovereign grace and not simply by sovereign
will, we see that God’s eternal purposes are in favor of man and not
against him; and the heart finds rest and comfort in the fact that
God’s love and mercy are as tender as His purposes are strong.
__________________________________________________________________

[146] Systematic Theology, I., p. 539; II., p. 314.

[147] Lectures on Calvinism, pp. 149, 150.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXVI

A Comparison with the Mohammedan Doctrine of Predestination

1. Elements Which the Two Doctrines Have in Common. 2. Mohammedan
Tendency Toward Fatalism. 3. Christian Doctrine Not Derived From
Mohammedanism. 4. The Two Doctrines Contrasted.

1. ELEMENTS WHICH THE TWO DOCTRINES HAVE IN COMMON

While Mohammedanism is a false religion and utterly destitute of power
to save the soul from sin, there are certain elements of truth in the
system, and we are under obligation to honor truth regardless of the
source from which it comes. “The strength of Mohammedanism,” says
Froude, “was that it taught the omnipotence and omnipresence of one
eternal Spirit, the Maker and Ruler of all things, by whose everlasting
purpose all things were, and whose will all things must obey.” [148]
The striking similarity between the Biblical and the Koranic doctrines
of Predestination has been noticed by many writers. Dr. Samuel M.
Zwemer, who in a very real sense can be referred to as “the apostle to
the Mohammedan world,” calls attention to the strange parallel between
the Reformation in Europe under Calvin and that in Arabia under
Mohammed. Says he: “Islam is indeed in many respects the Calvinism of
the Orient. It, too, was a call to acknowledge the sovereignty of God’s
will. ‘There is no god but God.’ It, too, saw in nature and sought in
revelation the majesty of God’s presence and power, and manifestations
of His glory, transcendent and omnipotent. ‘God,’ says Mohammed, ‘there
is no god but He, the living, the self-subsistent, slumber seizeth Him
not, nor sleep–His throne embraceth the heavens and the earth and none
can intercede with Him save by His permission. He alone is exalted and
great’ . . . . It is this vital theistic principle that explains the
victory of Islam over the weak divided and idolatrous Christendom of
the Orient in the sixth century. . . . The Message of Mohammed, when he
first unfurled the green banner, ‘There is no god but God; God is king,
and you must and shall obey His will,’ was one of the simplest accounts
ever offered of the nature of God and His relation to man. . . . This
was Islam, as it was offered at the sword’s point to people who had
lost the power of understanding any other argument.” [149]

In addition to the Koran there are a number of orthodox traditions
which claim to give Mohammed’s teachings on the subject. Some of these
tell in almost identical language how before the person is born an
angel descends and writes his destiny. It is said that the angel
inquires, “O my Lord, miserable or blessed? whereupon one or the other
is written down; and: O my Lord, a male or a female? whereupon one or
the other is written down. He also writes down the moral conduct of the
new being, its career, its term of life, and its allotment of good.
Then (it is said to him): Roll up the leaves, for no addition shall be
made thereto, nor anything taken therefrom.” In another tradition we
read of a messenger of God speaking thus: “There is no one of
you–there is no soul born whose place, whether Paradise or Hell, has
not been predetermined by God, and which has not been registered
beforehand as either miserable or blessed.” [150]

But while the Koran and the traditions teach a strict foreordination of
moral conduct and future destiny, they also present a doctrine of human
freedom which makes it necessary for us to qualify the sharper
assertions of divine Predestination in harmony with it. And here, too,
as in the Scriptures, no attempt is made to explain how the apparently
opposite truths of Divine sovereignty and human freedom are to be
reconciled.

2. MOHAMMEDAN TENDENCY TOWARD FATALISM

As a matter of fact, however, Mohammedanism places such an emphasis on
God as the sole cause of all events that second causes are practically
excluded. The idea that man is in any way the cause of his own acts has
nearly ceased to exist, and Fatalism, the normal belief of the Arabs in
their state of semi-civilization before Mohammed, is the controlling
force in the speculations and practices of the Moslem world. “According
to these traditions,” says Dr. Zwemer, “and the interpretation of them
for more than ten centuries in the life of Moslems, this kind of
Predestination should be called Fatalism and nothing else. For Fatalism
is the doctrine of an inevitable necessity and implies an omnipotent
and arbitrary sovereign power.” [151]

Practically, Mohammedanism holds to a predestination of ends regardless
of means. The contrast with the Christian system is seen in the
following story. A ship crowded with Englishmen and Mohammedans was
ploughing through the waves. Accidentally one of the passengers fell
overboard. The Mohammedans looked after him with indifference, saying,
“If it is written in the book of destiny that he shall be saved, he
shall be saved without us; and if it is written that he shall perish,
we can do nothing”; and with that they left him. But the Englishmen
said, “Perhaps it is written that we should save him.” They threw him a
rope and he was saved.

3. CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE NOT DERIVED FROM MOHAMMEDANISM

But whatever may be said about the doctrine of Predestination, no
reasonable person will charge that the Christian doctrine is borrowed
from the Mohammedan. Augustine, who is admitted by Protestants and
Catholics alike to have been the outstanding man in the Christian
Church at his time, and whom Protestants rate as the greatest between
Paul and Luther, had taught this doctrine with great conviction more
than two centuries before Mohammedanism arose; and it was aggressively
taught by Christ and the apostles at the beginning of the Christian
era, to say nothing of the place which it occupied in the Old
Testament.

A study of the history and teachings of Mohammedanism reveals that it
is made up of three parts, one of which was borrowed from the Jews,
another from the Christians, and the third from the heathen Arabs.
Hence a part of the system is nothing more nor less than Christianity
at second hand. But would any reasonable Christian give up certain
articles of his creed only because Mohammed adopted them in his? What
great gaps such conduct would make in our creed can be seen when we
learn that Mohammed believed in only one true God, that he utterly
abolished all idol worship, that he believed in angels, a general
resurrection and judgment, a heaven and hell, that he allowed both the
Old and New Testaments, and recognized both Moses and Christ as
prophets of God. It is small wonder, then, that elements of the
Christian doctrine of Predestination were incorporated into the
Mohammedan system and united with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism.

Furthermore, an historical study of this subject shows us that the
Mohammedans have had their sort of Arminians as truly as we, and that
the questions of Predestination and Free Will have been agitated among
the Mohammedan doctors with as much heat and vehemence as ever they
were in Christendom. The Turks of the sect of Omar hold the doctrine of
absolute Predestination, while the Persians of the sect of Ali deny
Predestination and assert Free Will with as much fervor as any
Arminian.

4. THE TWO DOCTRINES CONTRASTED

Although the terms used in describing the Reformed and the Mohammedan
doctrines of Predestination have much similarity the results of their
reasoning are as far apart as the East is from the West. In fact, the
further investigation proceeds the more superficial does the
resemblance become. Their greatest resemblance seems to be in the
teachings of each that everything which occurs happens according to the
will of God. Yet very different ideas are meant by the “will of God.”
Islam reduces God to a category of the will and makes Him a despot, an
oriental despot, who stands at abysmal heights above humanity. He cares
nothing for character, but only for submission. The only affair of men
is to obey His decrees, so that, as Zanchius says, Predestination
becomes “a sort of blind, rapid, overbearing impetus, which, right or
wrong, with means or without, carries all things violently before it,
with little or no attention to the peculiar and respective nature of
second causes.” And concerning human freedom Dr. Zwemer says that in
the doctrine of Islam, “God’s omnipotence is so absolute that it
excludes all self-activity on the part of the creature. . . . Whatever
freedom is permitted is only under the term Kasb; that is, the
appropriation of an act as his own which, after all, he is compelled to
execute as a part of God’s will.”

The Koran and orthodox traditions have practically nothing to say about
the concepts of sin and moral responsibility, and the morality of the
Mohammedan system is notoriously defective. In Islam it is difficult to
avoid the conclusion that God is the author of sin. The origin of sin
and its character are wholly different concepts in Islam and in
Christianity.

In Islam there is no doctrine of the Fatherhood of God and no purpose
of redemption to soften the doctrine of the decrees. God is represented
as having arbitrarily created one group of people for paradise and
another group for hell, and the events of every person’s life are so
ordered that little place is left for moral responsibility and guilt.
They deny that there has been any election in Christ to grace and
glory, and that Christ died a sacrificial death for his people. They
have nothing to say about the efficacy of saving grace or about
perseverance, and even in regard to the predestination of temporal
events the ideas are often gross and confused. The attribute of love is
absent from Allah. The ideas that God should love us or that we should
love God are strange ideas to Islam, and the Koran hardly hints at this
subject of which the Bible is so full.

In conclusion it may be said that the Arminian creed has little appeal
for the Mohammedan. So far as mission work is concerned, the
Calvinistic churches entered the world of Islam earlier and more
vigorously than any other group of churches, and for more than one
hundred years they and they alone have challenged Islam in the land of
its birth. They have occupied the strategic centers and today are
carrying on far the larger part of the mission work in the Moslem
world. With God’s sovereignty as basis, God’s glory as goal, and God’s
will as motive, the Presbyterian and Reformed churches are peculiarly
fitted to win Moslem hearts to the allegiance of Christ, and are
facing, with bright hopes of success, that most difficult of all
missionary tasks, the evangelization of the Moslem world.
__________________________________________________________________

[148] Calvinism, p. 38.

[149] Article, Calvinism and the World of Islam.

[150] Salisbury, article, Mohammedan Doctrine of Predestination and
Free Will.

[151] Moslem Doctrine of God, p. 97.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

1. Influence of the Doctrine in Daily Living. 2. A Source of Security
and Courage. 3. Calvinistic Emphasis on the Divine Agency in Man’s
Salvation. 4. Only Calvinism Will Stand All Tests. 5. These Doctrines
Not Unreasonable When Understood. 6. The Westminster Assembly and the
Westminster Confession. 7. These Doctrines Should be Publicly Taught
and Preached. 8. Ordination Vows and the Minister’s Obligation. 9. The
Presbyterian Church is Truly Broad and Tolerant. 10. Reason for the
Depressed Fortunes of Calvinism Today.

1. INFLUENCE OF THE DOCTRINE IN DAILY LIVING

This is not a cold, barren, speculative theory, not an unnatural system
of strange doctrines such as many people are inclined to believe, but a
most warm and living, a most vital and important account of God’s
relations with men. It is a system of great practical truths which are
designed and adapted, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to mould
the affections of the heart and to give right direction to the conduct.
Calvin’s own testimony in this respect is: “I would, in the first
place, entreat my readers carefully to bear in memory the admonition
which I offer; that this great subject is not, as many imagine, a mere
thorny and noisy disputation, nor a speculation which wearies the minds
of men without any profit; but a solid discussion eminently adapted to
the service of the godly, because it builds us up soundly in the faith,
trains us to humility, and lifts us up into an admiration of the
unbounded goodness of God toward us, while it elevates us to praise
this goodness in our highest strains. For there is not a more effectual
means of building up faith than the giving our open ears to the
election of God, which the Holy Spirit seals upon our heart while we
hear, showing us that it stands in the eternal and immutable goodwill
of God towards us; and that, therefore, it cannot be moved or altered
by any storms of the world, by any assaults of Satan, by any changes,
by any fluctuations or weaknesses of the flesh. For our salvation is
then sure to us, when we find the cause of it in the breast of God.”
[152] These, we think, are true words and much needed today.

The Christian who has this doctrine in his heart knows that he is
following a heaven-directed course; that his course has been
foreordained for him personally; and that it is a good course. He does
not yet understand all of the details, but even amid adversities he can
look forward confident of the future, knowing that his eternal destiny
is fixed and forever blessed, and that nothing can possibly rob him of
this priceless treasure. He realizes that after he has finished the
course here he shall look back over it and see that every single event
in it was designed of God for a particular purpose, and that he will be
thankful for having been led through those particular experiences. Once
convinced of these truths, he knows that the day is surely coming when
to all those who grieve or persecute him he shall be able to say, as
did Joseph to his brothers, “As for you, ye meant evil against me, but
God meant it for good.” This exalted conception of God as high and
lifted up yet personally concerned with even the smallest events leaves
no place for what men commonly call chance, or luck, or fortune. When a
person sees himself as one of the Lord’s chosen and knows that every
one of his acts has an eternal significance, he realizes more clearly
how serious life is, and he is fired with a new determination to make
his life count for great things.

2. A SOURCE OF SECURITY AND COURAGE

“It is the doctrine of a particular providence,” says Rice, “that gives
to the righteous a feeling of security in the midst of danger; that
gives them assurance that the path of duty is the path of safety and of
prosperity; and that encourages them to the practice of virtue, even
when it exposes them to the greatest reproach and persecution. How
often, when clouds and darkness seem to gather over them, do they
rejoice in the assurance given by their Saviour, ‘I will never leave
thee, nor forsake thee.’” [153] The sense of security which this
doctrine gives to the struggling saint results from the assurance that
he is not committed to his own power, or rather weakness, but into the
sure hands of the Almighty Father,–that over him is the banner of love
and underneath are the everlasting arms. He realizes that even the
Devil and wicked men, regardless of whatever tumults they may cause,
are not only restrained of God but are compelled to do His pleasure.
Elisha, lonely and forgotten, counted those who were with him more than
those who were against him, because he saw the chariots and horsemen of
the Lord moving in the clouds. The disciples, knowing that their names
were written in heaven, were prepared to endure persecutions, and on
one occasion we read that after being beaten and reviled “they departed
from the presence of the council rejoicing that they were accounted
worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name,” Acts 5:41.

“The godly consideration of predestination, and our election in
Christ,” says the seventeenth article in the creed of the Church of
England, “is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly
persons.” Paul’s injunction was, “In nothing be anxious.” And it is
only when we know that God actually rules from the throne of the
universe, and that He has ordained us to be his loved ones, that we can
have that inward peace in our hearts.

Dr. Clarence E. Macartney, in a sermon on Predestination, said: “The
misfortunes and adversities of life, so called, assume a different
color when we look at them through this glass. It is sad to hear people
trying to live over their lives again and saying to themselves: ‘If I
had chosen a different profession,’ ‘If I had taken a different turning
of the road,’ ‘If I had married another person.’ All this is weak and
unChristian. The web of destiny we have woven, in a sense, with our own
hands, and yet God had His part in it. It is God’s part in it, and not
our part, that gives us faith and hope.” And Blaise Pascal, in a
wonderful letter written to a bereaved friend, instead of repeating the
ordinary platitudes of consolation comforted him with the doctrine of
Predestination, saying: “If we regard this event, not as an effect of
chance, not as a fatal necessity of nature, but as a result inevitable,
just, holy, of a decree of His Providence, conceived from all eternity,
to be executed in such a year, day, hour, and such a place and manner,
we shall adore in humble silence the impenetrable loftiness of His
secrets; we shall venerate the sanctity of His decrees; we shall bless
the acts of His providence; and uniting our will with that of God
Himself, we shall wish with Him, in Him and for Him, the thing that He
has willed in us and for us for all eternity.”

Since the true Calvinist sees God’s hand and wise purpose in
everything, he knows that even his sufferings, sorrows, persecutions,
defeats, etc., are not the results of chance or accident, but that they
have been foreseen and foreappointed, and that they are chastisements
or disciplines designed for his own good. He realizes that God will not
needlessly afflict His people; that in the divine plan these are all
ordered in number, weight and measure; and that they shall not continue
a moment longer than God sees necessary. In sorrow his heart
instinctively clings to this faith, feeling that for reasons wise and
gracious though unknown, the affliction was sent. However keenly
afflictions may at first wound, a little reasoned thought quickly
brings him to himself again, and the sorrows and tribulations, in great
measure, become pointless.

And in accordance with this the Scriptures say: “To them that love God
all things work together for good,” Rom. 8:28; “My son, regard not
lightly the chastening of the Lord, Nor faint when thou art reproved of
Him; For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, And scourgeth every son
whom he receiveth,” Heb. 12:5, 6. “It is Jehovah: let Him do what
seemeth Him good,” I Sam. 3:18. “For I reckon that the sufferings of
this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which
shall be revealed to us-ward,” Rom. 8:18. “Blessed are ye when men
shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil
against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for
great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets
that were before you,” Matt. 5:11, 12. “If we endure (suffer with Him)
we shall also reign with Him,” II Tim. 2:12. “Jehovah gave, and Jehovah
hath taken away; Blessed be the name of Jehovah,” Job 1:21. When
someone slanders us we shall at least not be so angry if we remember
with David that “the Lord hath bidden him curse,” II Sam. 16:11.

Our predestination is our one sure guarantee of salvation. Other things
may give us comfort, but only this can give us certainty. It makes the
Gospel to be what the word really means, “Good News.” Any other system
which holds that Christ’s sacrifice did not actually save anyone but
that it merely made salvation possible for all if they would comply
with certain terms, reduces it to good advice; and any system which
carries with it only a “chance” for salvation, also carries with it, of
logical necessity, a “chance” to be lost. And what a difference it
makes to fallen man as to whether the Gospel is good news or good
advice! The world is full of good advice; even the books of heathen
philosophers contained much of it; but the Gospel alone contains for
man the good news that God has redeemed him.

This system, logical and severe though it may be, does not make one sad
and silent, but courageous and active. Knowing himself to be immortal
until his work is done, courage is a natural result. Smith’s estimate
of the Calvinist is expressed in the following words: “His feet plucked
from the horrible pit and planted on the Eternal Rock, his heart
thrilled with an adoring gratitude, his soul conscious of a Divine love
that will never forsake him and a Divine energy that in him and through
him is working out eternal purposes of good, he is girded with
invincible strength. In a nobler sense than Napoleon ever dreamed, he
knows himself to be a ‘man of destiny.’” And again he says, “Calvinism
is at once the most satisfying and the most stimulating of creeds.”
[154]

Yet along with these motives for courage are to be found others which
keep the person properly humble and grateful. In the present stage of
the world he sees himself as a brand plucked from the burning. Knowing
himself to have been saved not by any merit or wisdom of his own, but
only by God’s grace and mercy, he is deeply conscious of his dependence
on God, and has the greatest incentive to right living. All in all no
surer way will be found to fill the mind at one time with reverence,
humility, patience, and gratitude than to have it thoroughly saturated
with this doctrine of Predestination.

3. CALVINISTIC EMPHASIS ON THE DIVINE AGENCY IN MAN’S SALVATION

He will be only a very imperfect Christian who does not know these
deeper truths which are brought to light by the doctrine of
Predestination. He can have no adequate appreciation of the glory of
God, nor of the riches of grace which are given him through redemption
in Christ; for nowhere else as brightly as in the predestination of the
elect to life does the glory of God shine out in its full-orbed
splendor, undimmed and unsullied by human works of any kind. It shows
us that all that we are and all that we have that is desirable we owe
to His grace. It rebukes human pride and exalts Divine mercy. It makes
man to be nothing and God to be everything, and thus preserves the
proper relation between the creature and the infinitely exalted
Creator. It exalts one absolute Sovereign, who is the universal Ruler,
and humbles all other sovereigns before Him, thus showing that all men
in themselves and apart from God’s special favor are on the same level.
It has championed the rights of mankind wherever it has gone, in the
State as well as in the Church.

The doctrine of Predestination emphasizes the Divine side of salvation
while its rival system emphasizes the human side. It impresses upon us
the fact that our salvation is purely of grace, and that we were no
better than those who are left to suffer for their sins. It thus leads
us to be more charitable and tolerant toward the unsaved and to be
eternally thankful that God has saved us. It shows us that in our
fallen state our wisdom is folly, our strength weakness, and our
righteousness of no account. It teaches us that our hope is in God, and
that from Him must come all our help. It teaches us that lesson of
which so many are fatally ignorant, the blessed lesson of self-despair.
Luther tells us that he “used frequently to be much offended at this
doctrine,” because it drove him to self-despair; but that he afterward
found this kind of despair was profitable and near of kin to divine
grace. In fact we may say that it solves more questions, it involves
fewer difficulties, it gives more solid ground for faith and hope, and
it more exalts and glorifies God than does any doctrine which
contradicts it. We do not go too far in saying that it is fundamental
to the religious conceptions of the Biblical writers, and that to
eradicate it from either the Old or the New Testament would transform
the entire Scriptural representation. The matter was well put by Dr. J.
Gresham Machen when he said, “A Calvinist is constrained to regard the
Arminian theology as a serious impoverishment of the Scripture doctrine
of divine grace; and equally serious is the view which the Arminian
must hold as to the doctrines of the Reformed Churches.” [155]

It must be evident that there are just two theories which can be
maintained by evangelical Christians upon this important subject; that
all men who have made any study of it, and who have reached any settled
conclusions regarding it, must be either Calvinists or Arminians. There
is no other position which a “Christian” can take. Those who deny the
sacrificial nature of Christ’s death turn to a system of self salvation
or naturalism, and cannot be called “Christians” in the historical and
only proper sense of the term.

By way of comparison we may say that the Lutheran Church emphasizes the
fact that salvation is by faith alone; the Baptist Church emphasizes
the importance of the sacraments, particularly baptism, and the right
of individuals and of congregations to exercise private judgment in
religious affairs; the Methodist Church emphasises the love of God to
men, and man’s responsibility to God; the Congregational Church
emphasizes the right of private judgment and of local congregations to
manage their own affairs; the Roman Catholic Church emphasizes the
unity of the Church, and the importance of a connection with the
Apostolic church. But all of these, while good in themselves, are paled
by the great doctrine of the sovereignty and majesty of God which is
emphasized by the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. While the others
are more or less anthropological principles, this is a theological
principle, and it presents to us a GREAT GOD who is high and lifted up,
who is seated upon the throne of universal dominion.

Dr. Warfield has given us a good analysis of the formative principles
which underlie the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches. After saying
that the distinction is not that the Lutherans deny the sovereignty of
God, nor that the Reformed deny that salvation is by faith alone he
adds: “Lutheranism, springing from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul
seeking peace with God, finds this peace in faith, and stops right
there . . . It will know nothing beyond the peace of the justified
soul. Calvinism asks with the same eagerness as Lutheranism the great
question: ‘What shall I do to be saved?’ and answers it precisely as
Lutheranism answers it. But it cannot stop there. The deeper question
presses upon it, ‘Whence this faith by which I am justified?’ . . . It
has zeal, no doubt, for salvation, but its highest zeal is for the
honor of God, and it is this question which quickens its emotions and
vitalizes its efforts. It begins, it centers, and it ends with the
vision of God in His glory; and it sets itself before all things to
render to God His rights in every sphere of life activity.” [156] And
again he says: “It is the vision of God in His majesty, in a word,
which lies at the foundation of Calvinistic thinking,” and after a man
has seen this vision he “is filled on the one hand with a sense of his
own unworthiness to stand in God’s sight, as a creature, and much more
as a sinner, and on the other with adoring wonder that nevertheless
this God is a God who receives sinners.” All dependence on self is
gone, and he casts himself on the grace of God alone. In nature, in
history, in grace, everywhere, from eternity to eternity, he sees the
all-pervading activity of God.

If God has a definite plan for the redemption of man it is very
important that we shall know what that plan is. The person who looks at
a complicated machine but who is ignorant of the purpose it was
designed to accomplish and ignorant of the relation of its several
parts, must be unable to understand or usefully to apply it. Likewise,
if we are ignorant of the plan of salvation, the great end aimed at, or
the relation of the several parts, or if we misunderstand these, our
views will be confused and erroneous; we shall be unable properly to
apply it to ourselves or to exhibit it to others. Since the doctrine of
Predestination reveals to us so much concerning the way of salvation,
and since it gives so great comfort and assurance to the Christian, it
is a great and blessed truth.

We have no hesitation in affirming that this system of belief and
doctrine, as given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is the true and
final system of Philosophy. Furthermore, Theology studies God Himself,
while the physical sciences and liberal arts study only His garments.
In the very nature of the case, therefore Theology must be the “Queen
of the Sciences.” Philosophy, as it has usually been studied by the
different schools of thought, is indeed the ground and mistress of the
merely human sciences, but is itself only an auxiliary science in the
study of Theology.

Calvinistic Theology is the greatest subject that has ever exercised
the mind of man. Its very starting point is a profound apprehension of
the exaltation and perfection of God. With its sublime doctrines of
God’s sovereign grace, power, and glory, it rises to far greater
heights than does any other system. In fact, the one to whom it is
presented is moved to cry with the psalmist, “Such knowledge is too
wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain unto it”; or to exclaim
with the apostle Paul, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom
and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His
ways past finding out!” (Ps. 139:6; Rom. 11:33). It is a subject which
has challenged the intellects of all great thinkers in earnest times,
and there is little wonder that we are told that these are things which
angels desire to look into. To pass from other systems to this one is
like passing from the mouth of a river and launching out on the mighty
ocean. We leave the shallows behind and feel ourselves out on the great
broad deep.

4. ONLY CALVINISM WILL STAND ALL TESTS

The harmony which exists between all the branches of Scriptural
doctrine is such that truth or error in regard to any of them almost
inevitably produces truth or error, in a greater or less degree, in
regard to all the others,–which means that only Calvinists hold views
which are, in all respects, Scriptural in regard to any of the leading
doctrines of Christianity. This does not mean that the main substance
of the most important doctrines, such as the Divinity of Christ, His
sacrificial death, His resurrection, the work of the Holy Spirit, etc.,
are not held by others; but that the general tendency of mistaken views
in regard to these distinctively Calvinistic tenets is to lead to
greater departures from sound doctrines on other subjects. As a general
rule anti-Calvinists so seriously impoverish doctrines such as the
atonement, the agency of the Holy Spirit, the guilt and inability of
man, regeneration, etc., that these are often little more than empty
words; and along with this impoverishment goes the tendency to neglect
them entirely. Anti-Calvinists commonly make little distinction between
the objective work of Christ for us, and the subjective work in us; and
for all practical purposes the atonement is reduced to little or
nothing else than an exhibition and proof of God’s indiscriminate love
to men, through which it is shown that God is ready and willing to
forgive. The tendency of other systems is to the “moral persuasion”
theory of the atonement, while Calvinism holds that the suffering of
Christ was a full satisfaction made to the justice of God,–that his
sufferings were a full equivalent of those which were due to His people
for their sin.

We are living in a day in which we see practically all of the historic
Protestant churches attacked by unbelief from within. Many of them have
already succumbed; and the line of descent has invariably been from
Calvinism to Arminianism, and from Arminianism to Modernism or
Unitarianism; and this latter state has proved to be self-destructive.
We firmly believe that the fortunes of Christianity are bound up with
the fortunes of Calvinism. Certainly the history of Modernism and
Unitarianism in this country has proved that they are too weak to
maintain themselves. Where the principles of Calvinism are abandoned,
there is a powerful tendency leading downward into the depths of
Naturalism. Some have declared–and rightly we believe–that there is
no consistent middle ground between Calvinism and Atheism.

These distinctions which we have set forth between Calvinism and
Arminianism are broad and important; and until one has made a special
study of these truths he does not realize what a large amount of heresy
has been incorporated into the Arminian system. If one system is true,
the other is radically false. As strict Calvinists we believe these
doctrines to embody final truth and to be eternally right. We believe
this to be the only system of Christian truth which is taught in the
Bible and the only one that can be logically and respectably defended
before the world. And certainly it is much easier to defend a type of
Christianity which is in harmony with both Scripture and reason than to
defend any other type. We believe that Calvinism and consistent theism
do not merely have points of contact but that they are identical, and
that to fall away from Calvinism is to fall away by just so much from a
truly theistic conception of the universe. Dr. Warfield has said that
Calvinism is “Theism come to its rights,” that it is “Evangelicalism in
its pure and only stable expression,” that it is “religion at the
height of its conception.” We believe that the future of
Christianity–as its past has done–lies in its hands, and that as
Christianity progresses in the world this system of doctrine will
gradually come to the front.

Because of the inconsistent position of Arminianism as a half-way
measure between a religion of grace and a religion of works, it has
been able to offer but little resistance to the naturalistic tendencies
of the last few years. Practically all of the professedly Arminian
churches have been swallowed up by the present day Liberalism.

“If we are not only to defend Christianity against modern attacks,”
says Dr. S. G. Craig, “but to commend it with any hope of success to
the modern world, we must undertake the task armed with a consistent
and scientifically conceived life and world view that rests on
Christian facts and principles. . . . I hold with those who believe
that such a consistent Christian life and world view is given us only
in Calvinism, and hence that a renaissance of Calvinism is an
outstanding need of the times if we are successfully to defend even
what we call common Christianity in the forum of the world’s thought.”
The late Henry B. Smith was right at least in principle when he wrote,
“One thing is certain–that infidel science will rout everything
excepting thorough-going Christian orthodoxy. All the flabby theories,
and the molluscous formations, and the immediate purgatories of
speculation will go by the board. The fight will be between a stiff
thorough-going othodoxy and a stiff thorough-going infidelity. It will
be, e.g., Augustine or Comte, Athanasius or Hegel, Luther or
Schopenhauer, J. S. Mill or John Calvin.” The fight is between the
naturalism of science and the supernaturalism of Christianity; all
compromising schemes are doomed to failure. (Let it be understood at
this point that we have no quarrel with true science as such. We
recognize the great value of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy,
etc., and realize that much of our twentieth century progress has been
possible only through the contributions which these sciences have made.
We welcome truth from whatever source it comes, and believe that in the
end it will be seen to substantiate Christianity. The psalmist
declared, “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament
showeth His handiwork,” Ps. 19:1; and again, “O Jehovah, our Lord, how
excellent is thy name in all the earth,” Ps. 8:1; and certainly the
more we know about these things the better we shall understand God. Our
quarrel rather is with certain unbelieving scientists who attempt to
bring their anti-Christian or even atheistic theories over into the
spheres of religion and philosophy, and who profess to speak with
authority on subjects concerning which they are ignorant.)

It is very interesting to notice how, in the history of the Church,
other systems of theology have risen and fallen while this system has
steadily endured. Arminianism, in its present form at least, is of
comparatively recent date. From the time of the Reformation until late
in the eighteenth century it was consistently outlawed by Protestant
church counsels and creeds. Nor has it fared much better in the
Catholic Church. In the fourth century Augustine succeeded in making
his doctrine of Predestination the recognized doctrine of Christendom
and at no time has the Catholic Church consistently and officially
adopted the tenets of Arminianism. Likewise Neatorianism, Arianism,
Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Socinianism, etc., have risen, have had
their day, and passed out; while this system, known in different ages
as Augustinianism or Calvinism, has remained fundamentally the same in
its basic principles. Is not this in itself a strong proof that it is
the true system? In regard to the Calvinism of the Westminster
Confession, Dr. C. W. Hodge has said: “The newer modifications of
Calvinism have passed away, and this pure consistent form of
supernaturalism and evangelicalism stands as an impregnable barrier
against the floods of naturalism which threaten to overwhelm all the
churches in Christendom.”

In Calvinism alone does the logical and consistent mind find rest. That
it is a logical system is admitted even by its opponents. A man who is
acquainted with Calvinism will either love or hate it, but even if he
hates it, he cannot but speak respectfully of it. The criticism is
sometimes made that it places too much stress on logic and too little
on emotion. It is true that this anthracite Calvinism does not blaze up
like straw; but it is also true that once afire it produces an intense
and steady heat. “Calvinism,” says Prof. H. H. Meeter, “bears the
distinction among religious groups of being highly intellectual.
Calvinism is known for its dialectics. The Calvinists are recognized as
the logicians par excellence among theologians. Oliver Wendell Holmes
even went so far as to satirize this aspect of Calvinism in his
burlesque: ‘The Deacon’s Masterpiece.’ The old one-hoss shay, which was
so well constructed that every nut and bolt and bar and spoke was of
equal strength and collapsed all at once before the meeting house, was
to him the story of Calvinism. As a masterpiece of logic it had
continued for ages, but was supposed to have collapsed completely when
transcendentalism gained the ascendancy in New England.” [157]

The objection, however, that it over-emphasizes logic, has no adequate
basis, as anyone who approaches the system from a sympathetic
standpoint can readily see. Yet if we are to err on either side it is
probably better to err on the side of the intellect than on the side of
the emotions. But who ever heard of a system being thrown out because
it was too logical? Instead we glory in its logical consistency.

5. THESE DOCTRINES NOT UNREASONABLE WHEN UNDERSTOOD

Perhaps no other system of thought has been so grossly and grievously
and at times so deliberately misrepresented as has Calvinism. Many of
those who have criticized Calvinism have done so without making any
adequate study of the system, and it may truly be said that our
opponents in general know little of our opinions except what they have
picked up by hearsay in which there is neither connection nor
consistency. The doctrine of Predestination especially makes the wisdom
of the world a laughing stock, and in turn the wisdom of the world
scoffs at Predestination. If any doctrine is to the Jews a stumbling
block and to the Gentiles foolishness, certainly this one is. Nakedly
stated, the doctrine of Predestination seems paradoxical; and those who
are acquainted with no more than the mere statement of it are likely to
feel surprised that it could have been maintained by the pious and
thoughtful minds that have maintained it. But in this case, as in many
others, when we carefully examine its ground and construction, its
paradoxical character is at least diminished, if it does not disappear
altogether.

Hence we ask that this system shall be examined without passion and
that it shall be studied in its relations and logical consistency. We
have already seen that it is abundantly established on Scripture
authority; and when we add to this the evidence which comes from the
laws of Nature and the facts of human life, it becomes altogether
possible, probable, just, and righteous. Viewed in this light it ceases
to be the arbitrary illogical, immoral doctrine that its opponents
delight to picture, and becomes a doctrine which sheds glory on the
divine Majesty. These, of course, are not the doctrines which the
natural man expects to find. Salvation by works is the system which
most naturally appeals to unenlightened reason; and if we had been left
to develop a system ourselves, there is hardly one chance in a thousand
that we would have developed a system in which a redeemer acting in his
representative capacity would have earned these blessings and
graciously given them to his people. Says Zanchius, “The judgment of
the flesh, or of mere unregenerates reason, usually starts back from
this truth with horror; but, on the contrary, the judgment of a
spiritual man will embrace it with affection,” (p. 152). “If
Arminianism most commends itself to our feelings,” says Froude,
“Calvinism is nearer to the facts, however harsh and forbidding those
facts may seem.” It is plain that Calvinism makes its appeal to Divine
revelation rather than to man’s reason; to facts rather than sentiment;
to knowledge rather than supposition; to conscience rather than to
emotion.

As stated before, many people see nothing in this system but a strange
sort of foolishness. But when studied with a little care these
doctrines are found to be neither so uncertain nor so difficult as men
would lead us to believe; and the uncertainty and difficulty which does
attach to them is due largely to our pride, love of sin, and ignorance
of the real state of our heart. Those who have come to accept this
system almost feel that they are living in a different world, so
different is their outlook upon life. “Wherever the sons of God turn
their eyes,” says Calvin, “they behold such wonderful instances of
blindness, ignorance and insensibility, as fills them with horror;
while they, in the midst of such darkness, have received Divine
illumination, and know it, and feel it, to be so.” [158]

If we may paraphrase the words of Pope we can most fittingly say of
this subject: “A little Predestination is a dangerous thing; Then drink
deep, or else touch not the sacred spring.” Here, as in some other
instances, first draughts confuse and unsettle the mind, but deeper
draughts overcome the intoxicating effects and bring us back to our
right senses.

This sublime philosophy of God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom is found
in all parts of the Bible. No attempt, however, is made to explain to
us how these two factors are related. The unvarying assumption is that
God is the Sovereign Ruler who governs even the intimate thoughts and
feelings and impulses of men; yet on the other hand man is never
represented as anything else than an intelligent, free, moral agent who
is responsible for his actions. The doctrines of foreordination,
sovereignty, and effectual providential control, go hand in hand with
those of the liberty and responsibility of rational creatures. It is
not claimed that the doctrine of Predestination is free from all
difficulties, but it is claimed that its denial is attended with more
and greater difficulties. That a Being of infinite wisdom, power and
goodness would create a universe and then turn it adrift like some huge
vessel without a pilot, is a supposition which subverts our basic ideas
of God, which contradicts the repeated testimony of the Scriptures, and
which is contrary to our daily experience and common sense. Charles
Hodge prefaces his discussion of “The Decrees of God,” with the
following statement: “It must be remembered that Theology is not
Philosophy. It does not assume to discover truth, or to reconcile what
it teaches as true with all other truths. Its province is simply to
state what God has revealed in His word, and to vindicate those
statements as far as possible from misconceptions and objections. This
limited and humble office of Theology it is especially necessary to
bear in mind, when we come to speak of the acts and purposes of God.
‘The things of God knoweth no man; but the Spirit of God’ (1 Cor.
2:11). In treating, therefore, of the decrees of God, all that is
proposed is simply to state what the Spirit has seen fit to reveal on
that subject.” [159]

6. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY AND THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION

This system of Theology, which is usually referred to as Calvinism or
the Reformed Faith, finds its most perfect expression in the
Westminster Confession. The Westminster Assembly was called together by
the English Parliament. Its work extended over a period of five and one
half years, and was finished in 1648. It was a representative body,
made up of one hundred and twenty-one ministers or theologians, eleven
lords, twenty commoners, from all the counties of England and the
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, with seven commissioners from
Scotland. And whether judged by the extent and ability of its labors,
or by its influence upon later generations, it stands first among
Protestant councils. The most important production of the Assembly was
its Confession of Faith, a matchless compendium of Biblical truth which
was the noblest achievement of the best period of British
Protestantism. It has rightly been called the theological masterpiece
of the last four centuries. Dr. Warfield said of the Westminster
Confession that it was “The most complete, the most fully elaborated
and carefully guarded, the most perfect, and the most vital expression
that has ever been framed by the hand of man, of all that enters into
what we call evangelical religion, and of all that must be safeguarded
if evangelical religion is to persist in the world.”

Dr. F. W. Loetscher, in an address before the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., 1929, referred to the Westminster
Standards as, “these incomparable works of religious and theological
genius;” “those noblest products of the great religious revival that we
call the Reformation; those matchless formularies which at least
English-speaking Christendom has come to regard as the most
comprehensive, precise, and adequate embodiment of the pure Gospel of
the grace of God.” And in the same address he also said, “I realize
that such a characterization of these venerable documents will appear
to many, even among those whom I have the honor of addressing on this
occasion, as an unwarranted exaggeration, if not a sheer anachronism.
For the fashion of the day minimizes the value of creeds, and our
Confession, like many others, must often undergo the sorrowful
experience of being damned with faint praise even in the home of its
reputed adherents.”

Dr. Curry, who for a time was Editor of the “Methodist Advocate” of New
York, in an editorial on Creeds, called the Westminster Confession “the
ablest, clearest, and most comprehensive system of Christian doctrine
ever framed–a wonderful monument to the intellectual greatness of its
framers.”

In these standards we have the grandest conception of theological truth
that has ever entered the mind of man. As a system it exhibits far more
depth of theological insight than does any other, and it is worthy the
admiration of the ages. It is a system which produces men of strong
doctrinal convictions. The person who holds it has a definite basis for
belief and is not “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind
of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of
error.”

But while the Westminster Confession is so logically wrought out, so
clear and comprehensive in its statements, how sadly it is neglected
today by the members and even by the ministers of the Presbyterian and
Reformed Churches! “The Confession of Faith,” says Dr. Frank H.
Stevenson, the first president of the Board of Trustees of Westminster
Theological Seminary, “remains in the Constitution of the Presbyterian
Church, neglected, well-nigh forgotten, but unamended, untinkered with
in twenty-five years of doctrinal confusion. It is the creed of the
church, and every line sustains a courageous stand. Not for its own
sake alone, but because it gives full honor to Christ it is a worthy
standard beneath which to carry on what Paul prophetically called ‘the
good fight of faith.’” [160] With those words we fully agree.

7. THESE DOCTRINES SHOULD BE PUBLICLY TAUGHT AND PREACHED

The doctrine of sovereign Predestination, as well as the other
distinctive doctrines of the Calvinistic system, should be publicly
taught and preached in order that true believers may know themselves to
be special objects of God’s love and mercy, and that they may be
confirmed and strengthened in the assurance of their salvation. What a
misfortune it is for the truth which reflects so much glory upon its
Author and which is the very foundation of happiness in man to be
suppressed or to be confined merely to those who are specializing in
Theology! For the Christian this should be one of the most comforting
doctrines in all the Scriptures. Furthermore, there is scarcely a
distinctive Christian doctrine that can be preached in its purity and
fullness without a reference to Predestination. These doctrines are so
reciprocally related and interwoven that any one has a bearing on
others; and this doctrine of Predestination is the one which unites and
organizes all the others. Apart from it the others cannot be seen in
their true light nor their relative importance properly estimated.
Concerning the place of the doctrine of Predestination in the Christian
system, Zanchius writes as follows: “The whole circle of arts have a
kind of mutual bond and connection, and by a sort of reciprocal
relationship are held together and interwoven with each other. Much the
same may be said of this important doctrine; it is the bond which
connects and keeps together the whole Christian system, which, without
this, is like a system of sand, ever ready to fall to pieces. It is the
cement which holds the fabric together; nay, it is the very soul that
animates the whole frame. It is so blended and interwoven with the
entire scheme of Gospel doctrine that when the former is excluded, the
latter bleeds to death.” [161]

We are commanded to go and “preach the gospel”; but in so far as any
part of it is mutilated or passed over in silence we are unfaithful to
that command. Certainly no Christian minister is at liberty to take his
scissors and cut out of his Bible all of those passages which are not
to his liking. Yet for all practical purposes is not that the effect
when important doctrines are deliberately passed over in silence? Paul
could say to his Christian converts, “I shrank not from declaring unto
you anything that was profitable”; and again, “I testify unto you this
day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I shrank not from
declaring unto you the whole counsel of God,” Acts 20:20, 26, 27. If
the Christian minister today would be able to say this, let him beware
of withholding such important truth. Paul repeatedly referred to these
doctrines. His letter to the Romans (chs. 8 to 11) and to the Ephesians
(chs. 1 and 2) are the most prominent in this respect. In writing to
the Romans he was in effect bringing these things before the whole
world and stamping a universal imprimatur upon them; and if he
considered them so important that they should be written to the
primitive Christians in the young church at Rome which he had not
visited, we may be sure that they are important for Christians today.
Christ and the apostles preached these things, and that not merely to a
few people but to the multitudes. There is hardly a chapter in the
Gospel of John which does not either mention or imply election or
reprobation. When a plain, straight-forward, common-sense man asks, “Is
the doctrine of Predestination taught in the Bible?” the answer
certainly should be in the affirmative,–that it is constantly taught
in both the Old and the New Testaments. Furthermore, the Westminster
Confession states it very explicitly. Hence we are to teach it and to
explain it in so far as that is possible. Paul urges us to “put on the
whole armor of God”; yet what a large part of that armor a person lacks
if he is ignorant of this great doctrine of Predestination!

Augustine rebuked those in his day who were passing over the doctrine
of Predestination in silence, and when he was sometimes charged with
preaching it too freely he refuted the charge by saying that where
Scripture leads we may follow. Luther, and especially Calvin, strongly
emphasized these truths, and Calvin developed them so clearly and
forcefully that the system has ever since been called “Calvinism.” Not
only in the countries where the Reformation was at its best, but later
in Holland, Scotland, England at the time of the Westminster Assembly,
and America during the earlier periods of her history, these doctrines
were commonly preached and were the means of developing deep religious
convictions in all classes of people.

It was Calvin’s conviction that the doctrine of Election should be made
the very center of the Church’s confession, and that if it were not
thus emphasized the Church should be prepared to see this wonderful
doctrine buried and forgotten. The correctness of his views is shown by
the fact that those groups which did not emphasize it, whether in
England, Scotland, Holland, the United States, or Canada, have, for all
practical purposes, lost it completely.

The one who is entrusted with a message from the King must give it as
he has received it; and surely the greatest of all messages, that of
predestination unto life, should not be passed over in silence. “An
ambassador,” says Zanchius, “is to deliver the whole message with which
he is charged. He is to omit no part of it, but must declare the mind
of the sovereign he represents, fully and without reserve. He is to say
neither more nor less than the instructions of his court require, else
he comes under displeasure, perhaps loses his head. Let the minister of
Christ weigh this well.” [162] These are doctrines which have been
expressly given by divine revelation. They make wholly for the divine
glory, bringing comfort and courage to the elect, and leaving sinners
without excuse. True, man does not like to be told that he is a sinner
and unable to help himself. Such doctrine is too humiliating. But if he
is lost without Christ, the sooner he knows it the better. For us to
refuse to preach it is to be false to our Lord and negligent in our
duty to our fellow men. To ignore it is to act like a doctor who
refuses to operate to save the life of a patient because he knows the
operation will cause the patient pain. If these truths were fearlessly
and courageously preached Modernism and unbelief would not creep into
our churches as they are doing. The group of professing Christians
would perhaps be smaller but more loyal and effective in Christian
works.

The preaching of these doctrines will, of course, stir up some
controversy. But controversy is not to he looked upon as an unmixed
evil. As long as error exists there must be controversy. The attacks
which were made upon the doctrines of the Church by the pagans and
heretics during the early Christian centuries and in the Middle Ages
forced the Church to reexamine her doctrines, to work them out, to
explain, purify and fortify them. They compelled a closer study of the
Bible. A number of brilliant churchmen arose who wrote books and
articles on the Christian Faith, and as a result the Church was greatly
enriched by the intellectual and spiritual fruits thus produced.

It is a mistake to say that people will no longer listen to doctrinal
preaching. Let the minister believe his doctrines; let him present them
with conviction and as living issues, and he will find sympathetic
audiences. Today we see thousands of people turning away from pulpit
discussions of current events, social topics, political issues, and
merely ethical questions, and trying to fill themselves with the husks
of occult and puerile philosophies. In many ways we are spiritually
poorer than we should be, because in our theological confusion and
bewilderment we have failed to do justice to these great doctrinal
principles. If rightly preached these doctrines are most interesting
and profitable. The author’s experience as a Bible teacher has shown
him that no other subjects so electrify and hold the attention of
students as do these. Furthermore, we may ask, What excuse has the
Presbyterian Church for its continued existence as a separate
denomination if Calvinism is to be discarded as a non-essential? Much
of our present-day weakness is due to the fact that our people have had
but little instruction concerning these distinctive doctrines of the
Presbyterian system, and this lack of instruction has led directly into
the ecumenical movement in which attempts are being made to unite
churches of very different types with only a minimum of doctrine.

The doctrine of Predestination is a doctrine for genuine Christians.
Considerable caution should be exercised in preaching it to the
unconverted. It is almost impossible to convince a non-Christian of its
truthfulness, and in fact the heart of the unregenerate man usually
revolts against it. If it is stressed before the simpler truths of the
Christian system are mastered, it will likely be misunderstood and in
that case it may only drive the person into deeper despair. In
preaching to the unconverted or to those who are just beginning the
Christian life, our part consists mainly in presenting and stressing
man’s part in the work of salvation,–faith, repentance, moral reform,
etc. These are the elementary steps so far as man’s consciousness
extends. At that early stage little need be said about the deeper
truths which relate to God’s part. As in the study of Mathematics we do
not begin with algebra and calculus but with the simple problems of
arithmetic, so here the better way is to first present the more
elementary truths. Then after the Person is saved and has traveled some
distance in the Christian way he comes to see that in his salvation
God’s work was primary and his was only secondary, that he was saved
through grace and not by his own works. As Calvin himself put it, the
doctrine of Predestination is “not a matter for children to think much
about”; and Strong says, “This doctrine is one of those advanced
teachings of Scripture which requires for its understanding a mature
mind and a deep experience. The beginner in the Christian life may not
see its value or even its truth, but with increasing years it will
become a staff to lean upon.” [163] But while it is true that this
doctrine cannot be adequately appreciated by the unconverted nor by
those who are just beginning the Christian life, it should be the
common property of all those who have traveled some distance in that
way.

It is worthy of notice that in developing his “Institutes” Calvin did
not treat the doctrine of Predestination in the early chapters. He
first developed the other doctrines of the Christian system and
deliberately passed over this even in several cases where we might
naturally have expected to find it. Then in the last part of his
theological discussion it is developed fully and is made the crown and
glory of the entire system.

It may be further said that in preaching this doctrine care should be
taken not to exaggerate any statements, and also to show that it is
founded not upon arbitrary will but upon infinite wisdom and love.

8. ORDINATION VOWS AND THE MINISTER’S OBLIGATION

Every minister and elder who is ordained in the Presbyterian and
Reformed churches solemnly vows before God and men that he sincerely
receives and adopts the Confession of Faith of his church as containing
the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, (Pres. Ch. U. S.
A., see Form of Government, XIII:IV; XV:XII).Since these confessions
are thoroughly Calvinistic, this means that none but Calvinists can
honestly and intelligently accept this ordination. An Arminian has not
the slightest right to be a minister in a Calvinistic church, and any
Arminian who does become a minister in a Calvinistic church lacks good
morality as well as good theology. To declare one thing and believe the
contrary is hardly consistent with the character of an honest man. And
yet while our ordination vows are so thoroughly Calvinistic, how few
ministers there are who proclaim these doctrines! One could scarcely
tell from the pulpit utterances of the nominally Calvinistic churches
today what the essentials of the Reformed Faith really are. Our pulpits
as well as our church publications, our schools and seminaries, ring
with the Arminian doctrines of merit and free-will. The present day
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches seem to have no adequate conception
of the fundamental importance of their great doctrinal heritage. The
writings of Calvin and Luther, of the great Puritan divines, and of the
great theologians since that time should be better known to our young
theologians than merely by their titles. The scholastic form and
cumbersome style of these works has perhaps deterred many from making a
thorough study of them, but we should remember that the study of
Theology is not indulged in merely for the pleasure it affords. We do
not expect to find novels when we take up the folios of the old masters
in Theology.

Many young men enter the ministry without any real acquaintance with
the doctrine of the Church in which they intend to serve, and when they
hear of any who preach agreeably to the Westminster Standards they
consider them as “setters forth of strange doctrines.” The great need
of the Church today is for men of firm convictions and settled minds
rather than the latitudinarian type of Modernists or Liberals who
wander to and fro rejoicing that they have no dogmatic opinions and no
theological preferences. It seems that the majority of our ministers no
longer believe these Calvinistic doctrines, and that many of them,
contrary to their solemn ordination vows, are putting forth by crafty
and unfair methods their strongest efforts to destroy the faith that
they have solemnly sworn they have been moved by the Holy Spirit to
defend. If these doctrines are true they should be clearly and
aggressively taught and defended in our churches, seminaries, and
colleges. If they are not true they should be stricken from the
Confession of Faith. Honesty is as important in theology as in trade or
commerce, as important in a religious denomination as in a political
party. A Presbyterian minister is not a free lance, but is a presbyter
who has pledged himself to this system of doctrine. Those who deny
these doctrines in Presbyterian pulpits are being false to their
ordination vows, and should withdraw to denominations holding their
views. Certainly no church officer has a right to accept the honors and
remunerations which come from the outward acceptance of a creed which
he does not believe or teach.

“The creed of a Church,” says Shedd, “is a solemn contract between
church-members: even more so than the platform of a political party is
between politicians. The immorality of violating a contract, some
people do not seem to perceive when a religious denomination is
concerned; but when a political party is the body to be affected by the
breach of the pledge none are sharper to see and none are more vehement
to denounce the double-dealing. Should a faction arise within the
Republican party, for example, and endeavor to alter the platform while
still retaining the offices and salaries which they had secured by
professing entire allegiance to the party, and promising to adopt the
fundamental principles upon which it was founded and by which it is
distinguished from the Democratic and other political parties, the
charge of political dishonesty would ring through the whole rank and
file of Republicanism. And when in the exercise of party discipline
such factionists are turned out of office, and perhaps expelled from
the political organization, if the cry of political heresy-hunting and
persecution should be raised, the only answer vouchsafed by the
Republican press would be that of scorn. When political dishonesty
would claim toleration under cover of more ‘liberal’ policies than the
party is favoring, and would keep hold on party emoluments while
advocating different sentiments from those of the mass of the party, it
is curtly told that no one is compelled to join the Republican party or
to remain in it, but that if a person does join it or remains in it, he
must strictly adopt the party creed and make no attempts, secret or
open, to alter it. That a Republican creed is for Republicans and no
others, seems to be agreed on all sides; but that a Calvinistic creed
is for Calvinists and no others, seems to be doubted by some. . . .

“If in the heart of the Democratic party a school should arise which
would claim the right, while remaining in the party, to convert the
body to Republican principles and measures, it would be told that the
proper place for such a project is outside of Democracy, not within it.
The right of the school to its own opinions would not be disputed, but
the right to maintain and spread them with the funds and influences of
the Democratic party would be denied. . . . They would say to the
malcontents ‘We cannot prevent you from having your own peculiar views
and do not desire to, but you have no right to ventilate them in our
organization.’” [164]

Calvinistic churches are sometimes accused of intolerance or
persecution when departures from the church creed are made the subject
of judicial inquiry. We submit, however, that this charge is unjust and
that such a church is entirely within her rights when she requires her
ministers and teachers to conform their preaching and teaching to the
denominational standards.

From these considerations it will be clear why many of us have so
little enthusiasm for church union movements which would unite groups
holding widely different systems of doctrine. We believe the
Calvinistic system to be the only one set forth in the Scriptures and
vindicated by reason, and therefore the most stable and influential in
the production of righteousness. Yet to all who differ from us we
cordially allow the right of private judgment, and sincerely rejoice in
the good which they are able to accomplish. We rejoice that other
systems of theology approximate ours; yet we cannot consent to
impoverish our message by setting forth less than what we find the
Scriptures to teach. If a union could be consummated in which Calvinism
would be accepted as the system of truth taught in the Bible, we should
be delighted to enter into it; but we believe that for us to accept
anything short of that would be to surrender vital truth, and that
anything vague enough to embrace Calvinism and other systems of
doctrine would not be worth propagating. We believe that the
superficial advantage of numbers which would result from such a union
would amount to but little when balanced against the spiritual discord
which would inevitably follow. Hence, we wish to remain Presbyterian
until the doctrines of the Reformed Faith, which are simply the
doctrines of the Word of God, become the doctrines of the Church
universal.

These doctrines, now so disregarded or unknown if not openly opposed,
were universally believed and maintained by the reformers, and
following the Reformation were written into the creeds, catechisms, or
articles of every one of the Protestant churches. Any one who will
compare the printed pulpit utterances of our own day with those of the
Reformers will have no difficulty in perceiving how contradictory and
irreconcilably hostile they are to each other.

9. THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IS TRULY BROAD AND TOLERANT

While the Presbyterian Church is pre-eminently a doctrinal Church, she
never demands the full acceptance of her standards by any applicant for
admission to her fold. A credible profession of faith in Christ is her
only condition of Church membership. She does demand that her ministers
and elders shall be Calvinists; yet this is never demanded of lay
members. As Calvinists we gladly recognize as our fellow Christians any
who trust Christ for their salvation, regardless of how inconsistent
their other beliefs may be. We do believe, however, that Calvinism is
the only system which is wholly true. And while one can be a Christian
without believing the whole Bible, his Christianity will be imperfect
in proportion as he departs from the Biblical system of doctrine. In
this connection Prof. F. E. Hamilton has well said: “A blind, deaf and
dumb man can, it is true, know something of the world about him through
the senses remaining, but his knowledge will be very imperfect and
probably inaccurate. In a similar way, a Christian who never knows or
never accepts the deeper teachings of the Bible which Calvinism
embodies, may be a Christian, but he will be a very imperfect
Christian, and it should be the duty of those who know the whole truth
to attempt to lead him into the only storehouse which contains the full
riches of true Christianity.” “The Calvinist,” says Dr. Craig, “does
not differ from other Christians in kind, but only in degree, as more
or less good specimens of a thing differ from more or less bad
specimens of a thing.” We are not all Calvinists as we travel the road
to heaven, but we shall all be Calvinists when we get there. It is our
firm conviction that every redeemed soul in heaven will be a
thorough-going Calvinist. Christians in general must admit that when we
all “attain unto the unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:13), and know the full
truth, we shall be either all Calvinists or all Arminians.

It must always be kept in mind that Calvinism includes much more than
those peculiar features which distinguish it from Arminianism. It holds
firmly to the great doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ,
the Miracles, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the Inspiration of the
Scriptures, etc., which form the common faith of evangelical
Christendom.

In regard to the truly broad and tolerant nature of the Presbyterian
Church we shall now take the privilege of quoting rather extensively
from Dr. E. W. Smith’s admirable little book, “The Creed of
Presbyterians,”–more than sixty-five thousand copies of which have
already been distributed.

“The catholicity of Presbyterianism, its liberality of thought and
feeling, its freedom from sectarian narrowness and bigotry, is one of
its crowning characteristics . . . The catholicity of Presbyterianism
is no mere sentiment. It is not a thing of individual profession or
platform declamation. It is rooted in our creed. It is proclaimed in
our Standards. It is embodied in our doctrine of the Church. ‘The
visible Church,’ says our Confession, ‘consists of all those throughout
the world who profess the true religion together with their children.’
(Conf. of F., XXV:2). Thus, formally and publicly do we repudiate the
name of ‘the’ church and claim only to be a church of Jesus Christ. Not
only do our Standards contain no denunciation of the antagonistic views
of sister Evangelical churches, they are said to be the only church
Standards in existence which make explicit and authoritative
recognition of other evangelical churches as ‘true branches of the
Church of Jesus Christ.’ (Book of Church Order, Chap. II, sec. II, par.
II). To the ‘Communion of Saints,’ our Confession devotes an entire
chapter. We are there taught that our ‘holy fellowship and communion,’
in each other’s gifts and graces, in worship and mutual service of
love, ‘is to be extended unto all who in every place call upon the name
of the Lord Jesus.’ (XXVI:2).

“The catholicity of our standards finds beautiful expression in the
Presbyterian attitude toward all sister evangelical churches. While a
branch of evangelical Christendom unchurches all sister denominations,
such action is abhorrent to Presbyterian feeling and unknown to
Presbyterian practice. Members and ministers of other evangelical
churches we treat as in all respects true members and ministers equally
with ourselves of the Church of Christ.

“While several of these churches decline giving letters of dismission
from their own to other communions, we make no distinctions. We dismiss
members to Baptist, Episcopal or other Christian congregations, in
precisely the same form, and with the same affectionate confidence, as
though we were transferring them to churches of our own name.

“Some evangelical denominations deny the validity of ordinances
performed by sister churches, and when a minister or a member would
come to them from a sister denomination, the one must be re-ordained,
the other re-baptized. Such denial is utterly contrary to the
Presbyterian spirit and usage. We never repeat the rite. The ordinance
of a sister church we accept as no less valid than if performed by
ourselves.

“While from many evangelical pulpits the ministers of sister churches
are shut out, or from co-officiation in sacred ceremonies, such
exclusion is never practiced by us. It is alien to the Presbyterian
heart and habit. We are as free and cordial in asking Episcopal,
Baptist, or other evangelical ministers, to occupy our pulpits, or
assist us officially in administering the Lord’s Supper, as in asking
our own pastors.

“We unchurch no true Christian. We reject no ministerial ordination. We
repudiate no administered scriptural sacrament of a sister church.
Returning good for evil, we recognize our high-church fellow clergyman
as a true minister of Christ, and our immersionist brother as having
been validly baptized. We respond with all our hearts to the ‘Amen’ of
the Methodists; we join with our brethren in any psalmody that puts the
crown upon the brow of Jesus; and most lovingly do we invite our fellow
Christians of every name and denomination to partake with us of the
emblems of His broken body and His shed blood. We have no prejudice, no
peculiarity, no crotchet of any kind, to restrict our Christian
sympathies and dig a chasm between us and other servants of our Master.
Our catholicity is wide as evangelical Christendom,” (pp. 189-193).

And again he says: “The catholicity of the Presbyterian Church appears
in her one condition of church membership. She demands nothing whatever
for admission to her fold except a confession, uncontradicted by the
life, of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The applicant is not asked to
subscribe to our Standards or assent to our theology. He is not
required to be a Calvinist, but only to be a Christian. He is not
examined as to his orthodoxy, but only as to his ‘faith in and
obedience unto Christ.’ (Conf. of Faith, 28:4). He may have imperfect
notions about the Trinity and the Atonement; he may question infant
baptism, election, and final perseverance; but if he trusts and obeys
Christ as his personal Saviour and Lord, the door of the Presbyterian
Church is open to him, and all the privileges of her communion are his.

“When churches prescribe conditions of membership other than the simple
conditions of salvation, they are guilty of making it harder to get
into the Church than into heaven. To such ecclesiastical tyranny and
exclusiveness the Presbyterian Church stands in utter contrast. Her
Standards declare that as simple faith in Christ makes us members of
God’s family, so ‘those who have made a profession of faith in Christ
are entitled to all the rights and privileges of the Church.’ (Bk. Ch.
Order, III, 3.) Thus with a broad and beautiful catholicity the gates
of our Presbyterian Zion are flung wide as the gates of Heaven for all
the children of God,” (pp. 199, 200).

After declaring that the Presbyterian and Reformed constitute the
largest Protestant family in the world, Dr. Smith, in eloquent
language, gives the following grand summary of her missionary
achievement: “More catholic and imposing even than the Presbyterian
numbers is the worldwide range of the Presbyterian empire. While the
adherents of other Protestant communions are more or less massed in
single countries, the Lutherans in Germany, the Episcopalians in
England, the Methodists and Paptists in the United States, the line of
the Presbyterian Church is gone out through all the earth. She thrives
this hour in more continents, among a greater number of nations and
peoples and languages than any other evangelical church in the world.
As her witness in Continental Europe, she has the historic Presbyterian
Reformed Churches of Austria. Bohemia, Galicia, Moravia, Hungary,
Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, of Russia,
and Switzerland and Spain. She is rooted and fruitful in Africa, in
Australia, in Asia, in Great Britain, in North America, in South
America, in the West Indies, in New Zealand, in Melanesia,–the people
of this faith and order gird the earth. Presbyterianism possesses a
power of adaptation unparalleled by any other system. It has furnished
an unduly large proportion of the outstanding preachers, evangelists,
editors, authors, educators, statesmen, and civic leaders; and from its
abundant spiritual life are going forth the mighty forces of Christian
missions into all the heathen world,” (p. 211).

10. REASONS FOR THE DEPRESSED FORTUNES OF CALVINISM TODAY

What reasons are we to assign for the present day defection from
Calvinism? That the celebrated five points of the Calvinistic star are
not shining so brightly today will hardly be disputed by any one. When
we consider the trend of present day thought we readily conclude that
the fortunes of Calvinism (if we may change the figure) are not at
their flood. In many places where it once flourished it has now almost
disappeared. There are practically no “Calvinists without reserve” left
among the acknowledged leaders of religious thought in France,
Switzerland, or Germany where Calvinism was once able to give such a
good account of itself. In England Calvinism has practically
disappeared. In America there is no longer any large church in its
corporate capacity aggressively maintaining the Calvinistic heritage.
In Scotland, however, we are glad to say that the heroic Free Church
still raises its voice amid the sad defection of the larger bodies. And
in the great free church of Holland, the “Gereformeerde kerken,” we
have a truly Calvinistic church in the modern world,–one in which the
Christian religion is aggressively set forth on the basis of Holy
Scripture in the Reformed Faith.

History shows us quite plainly, however, that periods of spiritual
prosperity alternate with periods of spiritual depression. But above
all, we believe in the invincibility of truth. “Truth crushed to earth
shall rise again; The unending years of God are hers.”

That Calvinism has many adversaries is not to be wondered at. As long
as the fact remains that, “The natural man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot
know them, because they are spiritually judged” (I Cor. 2:14), so long
will this be a strange, foolish system to the natural man. As long as
fallen human nature remains as it is, and as long as the decree stands
that Christ Himself is to be “a stone of stumbling and a rock of
offence” to the natural man (I Peter 2:8), these things will be an
offense to many. Nor was it to be marveled at that the immortal Swiss
reformer who was called to such a prominent place in the development
and defence of these doctrines has been on the one hand the most
passionately loved and admired, and on the other the most bitterly
hated and abused, among all the outstanding leaders in the Church.

Since faith and repentance are special gifts from God, we should not be
astonished at the unbelief of the world; for even the wisest and
acutest of men cannot believe unless they receive these gifts. It is
very appropriately written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and
the discernment of the discerning will I bring to naught” (I Cor.
2:19); and again, “The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
For it is written, He taketh the wise in their craftiness; and again,
The Lord knoweth the reasonings of the wise, that they are vain.
Wherefore let no one glory in men,” (I Cor. 3:19-21). The cause of any
person believing is the will of God; and the outward sound of the
Gospel strikes the ear but in vain until God is pleased to touch the
heart within.

This is a system which has always been strongly opposed by the world,
and it is as strongly opposed now as ever. Indeed, how could it be
otherwise when man by nature is at enmity and war with Him from whose
mind it has emanated? It is not to be expected that God in His wisdom
and man in his folly would agree. God is an all-wise and all-holy
sovereign; man unchanged is a sin-blinded rebel, who wants no ruler and
most certainly not an absolute ruler. Since the enmity of man’s heart
toward the distinctive doctrines of the Cross is as great and as
intense as ever, a system such as Pelagianism or Naturalism, which
teaches salvation by our own good works, or such as Arminianism, which
teaches salvation partly by works and partly by grace, strikes a
quicker response in the unregenerate heart. When the Gospel becomes
palatable to the natural man it ceases to be the Gospel that Paul
preached. And it is worth remembering here that in nearly every town in
which Paul preached his Gospel did cause either a riot or a revival and
not infrequently both. “Calvinism may be unpopular in some quarters,”
says McFetridge. “But what of that? It cannot be more unpopular than
the doctrines of sin and grace as revealed in the New Testament”

Another reason for the depressed fortunes of Calvinism today is its
tremendous emphasis upon the supernatural. In all events and in all
things, from eternity to eternity, Calvinism sees God. His hand is
visible in all the phenomena of nature and in all the events of
history. Through all occurrences His one increasing purpose runs. We
live in an age which is anti-supernaturalistic; hence it is
distinctively hostile to Calvinism. The emphasis today is upon the
physical sciences, upon rationalism in thought and sentiment. Even in
present day Christianity the tendency is to take the Bible merely as a
human production and to look upon Christ merely as the outstanding man.
Present day Modernism, which in its consistent form is pure naturalism
and autosoteric, is the very antithesis of Calvinism. All of this has
produced a naturalistic religion which says, “Hands off,” to God; and
it is not strange that Calvinism, with its great emphasis on the
supernatural, is not popular in our day. We need not be surprised,
then, when the adherents to these doctrines are found to be in the
minority. The truth or falsity of Scripture doctrines cannot be left to
the outcome of a popular vote.

In the following words Dr. B. B. Warfield, that giant of thought and
action, has given us a good analysis of the attitude which the world
has taken toward Calvinism in recent years. After saying that Calvinism
is “Theism come to its rights,” that it is “religion at the height of
its conception,” and that it is “Evangelicalism in its pure and only
stable expression,” he adds: “Consider the pride of man, his assertion
of freedom, the boast of power, his refusal to acknowledge the sway of
another’s will. Consider the ingrained confidence of the sinner in his
own fundamentally good nature and his full ability to perform all that
can be justly demanded of him.

“Is it strange that in this world–in this particular age of this
world–it should prove difficult to preserve not only active, but vivid
and dominant, the perception of the everywhere determining hand of God,
the sense of absolute dependence on Him, the conviction of utter
inability to do even the least thing to rescue ourselves from sin–at
the height of its conception? Is it not enough to account for whatever
depression Calvinism may be suffering in the world today, to point to
the natural difficulty–in this materialistic age, conscious of its
newly realized powers over against the forces of nature and filled with
the pride of achievement and of material well-being–of guarding our
perception of the governing hand of God in all things, in its
perfection; of maintaining our sense of dependence on a higher power in
full force; of preserving our feeling of sin, unworthiness, and
helplessness in its profundity? Is not the depression of Calvinism, so
far as it is real, significant merely of this–that to our age the
vision of God has become somewhat obscured in the midst of abounding
triumphs, that the religious emotion has in some measure ceased to be
the determining force in life, and that the evangelical attitude of
complete dependence on God for salvation does not readily commend
itself to men who are accustomed to lay forceful hands on everything
else they wish, and who do not quite see why they may not take heaven
also by storm?” [165]

Yet there is no occasion for Calvinists to feel discouraged. The easy
going religion of today, with its emphasis on social problems rather
than on doctrine, has brought into the Church multitudes which in other
ages would have remained outside; and the mere fact that Calvinists are
not so conspicuous in the congregation does not necessarily mean that
their actual numbers have decreased. “There are very likely more
Calvinists in the world today than ever before,” says Dr. Warfield.
“Even relatively, the professedly Calvinistic Churches are, no doubt,
holding their own. There are important tendencies of modern thought
which play into the hands of this or that Calvinistic conception. Above
all, there are to be found everywhere humble souls, who, in the quiet
of retired lives, have caught a vision of God in His glory and are
cherishing in their hearts that vital flame of complete dependence on
Him which is the very essence of Calvinism.” [166] And again, “I fully
believe that Calvinism, as it has supplied the sinews of evangelical
Christianity in the past, so is its strength in the present, and is its
hope for the future.”

And in close conformity with this Dr. F. W. Loetscher, has said: “It is
no wonder that our age, distraught by its very knowledge, irreverent of
antiquity, impatient of creeds and dogmas, intolerant alike of human
and divine authority, overborne by the currents of atheistic Naturalism
and pantheistic Evolution, is directing its heaviest artillery of
unbelief against Calvinism as the strongest citadel of supernatural
revelation and redemption. And as Professor Henry B. Smith prophesied a
generation ago: ‘One thing is certain–that infidel science will rout
everything excepting a thorough-going Christian orthodoxy.’ Let us,
then, resolutely accept this challenge. And let us be of good cheer;
for Calvinism can no more perish from the earth than sinful man can
utterly lose his sense of dependence upon God, or the Almighty can
abdicate the throne of His universal dominion.”

James Anthony Froude, the distinguished professor of Church History in
Oxford University, England, said of the rather lifeless religion which
had become so common in his day: “This was not the religion of your
fathers; this was not the Calvinism which overthrew spiritual
wickedness, and hurled kings from their thrones, and purged England and
Scotland, for a time at least, of lies and charlatanry. Calvinism is
the spirit which rises in revolt against untruth, the spirit which, as
I have shown you, has appeared and reappeared, and in due time will
appear again, unless God be a delusion and man be as the beasts that
perish.”

It may be proper at this point to say that the author of this book was
not reared in a Calvinistic Church, and he well remembers how
revolutionary these doctrines seemed when he first came in contact with
them. During one Christmas vacation of his College course he happened
to read the first volume of Charles Hodge’s “Systematic Theology,”
which contains a chapter on “The Decrees of God,” and which stated
these truths with such compelling force that he was never able to get
away from them. Furthermore, he takes some pride in the fact that he
has reached this position only after a rather severe mental and
spiritual struggle, and he feels deeply sympathetic toward others who
may be called upon to go through a somewhat similar experience. He
knows the sacrifice required to withdraw from the church of his youth
when he became convinced that that church taught a system which
contained much error. Most of his closest relatives and friends
belonged to that church, and he will perhaps be pardoned if he betrays
a bit of intolerance toward those “born Presbyterians” who remain
members of the Presbyterian Church while openly opposing or ridiculing
these doctrines.
__________________________________________________________________

[152] Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 29.

[153] God Sovereign and Man Free, p. 46.

[154] The Creed of Presbyterians, pp. 53, 94.

[155] Christianity and Liberalism, p. 51.

[156] Article, Calvin as a Theologian and Calvinism Today, pp. 23, 24.

[157] The Fundamental Principle of Calvinism, p. 25.

[158] Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 30.

[159] Systematic Theology, I., p. 535.

[160] Article printed in Christianity Today, Sept., 1930, p. 7.

[161] Predestination, p. 124.

[162] Predestination, p. 124.

[163] Systematic Theology, p. 368.

[164] Shedd, Calvinism, Pure and Mixed, p. 160.

[165] Article, Calvinism Today, p. 7.

[166] Article, The Theology of Calvin, p. 8.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXVIII

Calvinism in History

1. Before the Reformation. 2. The Reformation. 3. Calvinism in England.
4. Calvinism in Scotland. 5. Calvinism in France. 6. Calvinism in
Holland. 7. Calvinism in America. 8. Calvinism and Representative
Government. 9. Calvinism and Education. 10. John Calvin. 11.
Conclusion.

1. BEFORE THE REFORMATION

It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of
Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the
end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief
emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers,
submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course
taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had
full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings
contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet
along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the
human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have
denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God’s
absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there
was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to
give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last,
as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that
salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of
merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all
of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly
seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In
his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier
theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted
the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect. It will
not be denied by anyone acquainted with Church History that Augustine
was an eminently great and good man, and that his labors and writings
contributed more to the promotion of sound doctrine and the revival of
true religion than did those of any other man between Paul and Luther.

Prior to Augustine’s day the time had been largely taken up in
correcting heresies within the Church and in refuting attacks from the
pagan world in which it found itself. Consequently but little emphasis
had been placed on the systematic development of doctrine. And that the
doctrine of Predestination received such little attention in this age
was no doubt partly due to the tendency to confuse it with the Pagan
doctrine of Fatalism which was so prevalent throughout the Roman
Empire. But in the fourth century a more settled time had been reached,
a new era in theology had dawned, and the theologians came to place
more emphasis on the doctrinal content of their message. Augustine was
led to develop his doctrines of sin and grace partly through his own
personal experience in being converted to Christianity from a worldly
life, and partly through the necessity of refuting the teaching of
Pelagius, who taught that man in his natural state had full ability to
work out his own salvation, that Adam’s fall had but little effect on
the race except that it set a bad example which is perpetuated, that
Christ’s life is of value to men mainly by way of example, that in His
death Christ was little more than the first Christian martyr, and that
we are not under any special providence of God. Against these views
Augustine developed the very opposite. He taught that the whole race
fell in Adam, that all men by nature are depraved and spiritually dead,
that the will is free to sin but not free to do good toward God, that
Christ suffered vicariously for His people, that God elects whom He
will irrespective of their merits, and that saving grace is
efficaciously applied to the elect by the Holy Spirit. He thus became
the first true interpreter of Paul and was successful in securing the
acceptance of his doctrine by the Church.

Following Augustine there was retrogression rather than progress.
Clouds of ignorance blinded the people. The Church became more and more
ritualistic and salvation was thought to be through the external
Church. The system of merit grew until it reached its climax in the
“indulgences.” The papacy came to exert great power, political as well
as ecclesiastical, and throughout Catholic Europe the state of morals
came to be almost intolerable. Even the priesthood became desperately
corrupt and in the whole catalogue of human sins and vices none are
more corrupt or more offensive than those which soiled the lives of
such popes as John XXIII and Alexander VI.

From the time of Augustine until the time of the Reformation very
little emphasis was placed on the doctrine of Predestination. We shall
mention only two names from this period: Gottschalk, who was imprisoned
and condemned for teaching Predestination; and Wycliffe, “The Morning
Star of the Reformation,” who lived in England. Wycliffe was a reformer
of the Calvinistic type, proclaiming the absolute sovereignty of God
and the Foreordination of all things. His system of belief was very
similar to that which was later taught by Luther and Calvin. The
Waldensians also might be mentioned for they were in a sense
“Calvinists” before the Reformation, one of their tenets being that of
Predestination.

2. THE REFORMATION

The Reformation was essentially a revival of Augustinianism and through
it evangelical Christianity again came into its own. It is to be
remembered that Luther, the first leader in the Reformation, was an
Augustinian monk and that it was from this rigorous theology that he
formulated his great principle of justification by faith alone. Luther,
Calvin, Zwingli and all the other outstanding reformers of that period
were thorough-going predestinarians. In his work, “The Bondage of the
Will,” Luther stated the doctrine as emphatically and in a form quite
as extreme as can be found among any of the reformed theologians.
Melanchthon in his earlier writings designated the principle of
Predestination as the fundamental principle of Christianity. He later
modified this position, however, and brought in a kind of “synergism”
in which God and man were supposed to co-operate in the process of
salvation. The position taken by the early Lutheran Church was
gradually modified. Later Lutherans let go the doctrine altogether,
denounced it in its Calvinistic form, and came to hold a doctrine of
universal grace and universal atonement, which doctrine has since
become the accepted doctrine of the Lutheran Church. In regard to this
doctrine Luther’s position in the Lutheran Church is similar to that of
Augustine in the Roman Catholic Church,–that is, he is a heretic of
such unimpeachable authority that he is more admired than censured.

To a great extent Calvin built upon the foundation which Luther laid.
His clearer insight into the basic principles of the Reformation
enabled him to work them out more fully and to apply them more broadly.
And it may be further pointed out that Luther stressed salvation by
faith and that his fundamental principle was more or less subjective
and anthropological, while Calvin stressed the principle of the
sovereignty of God, and developed a principle which was more objective
and theological. Lutheranism was more the religion of a man who after a
long and painful search had found salvation and who was content simply
to bask in the sunshine of God’s presence, while Calvinism, not content
to stop there, pressed on to ask how and why God had saved man.

“The Lutheran congregations,” says Froude, “were but half emancipated
from superstition, and shrank from pressing the struggle to extremes;
and half measures meant half-heartedness, convictions which were half
convictions, and truth with an alloy of falsehood. Half measures,
however, could not quench the bonfires of Philip of Spain or raise men
in France or Scotland who would meet crest to crest the princes of the
house of Lorraine. The Reformers required a position more sharply
defined and a sterner leader, and that leader they found in John Calvin
. . . For hard times hard men are needed, and intellects which can
pierce to the roots where truth and lies part company. It fares ill
with the soldiers of religion when ‘the accursed thing’ is in the camp.
And this is to be said of Calvin, that so far as the state of knowledge
permitted, no eye could have detected more keenly the unsound spots in
the creed of the Church, nor was there a Reformer in Europe so resolute
to exercise, tear out and destroy what was distinctly seen to be
false–so resolute to establish what was true in its place, and make
truth, to the last fibre of it, the rule of practical life.” [167]

This is the testimony of the famous historian from Oxford University.
Froude’s writings make it plain that he had no particular love for
Calvinism; and in fact he is often called a critic of Calvinism. These
words just quoted simply express the impartial conclusions of a great
scholar who looks at the system and the man whose name it bears from
the vantage ground of learned investigation.

In another connection Froude says: “The Calvinists have been called
intolerant. Intolerance of an enemy who is trying to kill you seems to
me a pardonable state of mind . . . The Catholics chose to add to their
already incredible creed a fresh article, that they were entitled to
hang and burn those who differed from them; and in this quarrel the
Calvinists, Bible in hand, appealed to the God of battles. They grew
harsher, fiercer,–if you please, more fanatical. It was extremely
natural that they should. They dwelt, as pious men are apt to dwell in
suffering and sorrow, on the all-disposing power of Providence. Their
burden grew lighter as they considered that God had so determined that
they must bear it. But they attracted to their ranks almost every man
in Western Europe that ‘ hated a lie.’ They were crushed down, but they
rose again. They were splintered and torn, but no power could bend or
melt them. They abhorred as no body of men ever more abhorred all
conscious mendacity, all impurity, all moral wrong of every kind so far
as they could recognize it. Whatever exists at this moment in England
and Scotland of conscious fear of doing evil is the remnant of the
convictions which were branded by the Calvinists into the people’s
hearts. Though they failed to destroy Romanism, though it survives and
may survive long as an opinion, they drew its fangs; they forced it to
abandon that detestable principle, that it was entitled to murder those
who dissented from it. Nay, it may be said that by having shamed
Romanism out of its practical corruption the Calvinists enabled it to
revive.” [168]

At the time of the Reformation the Lutheran Church did not make such a
complete break with the Catholic Church as did the Reformed. In fact
some Lutherans point out with pride that Lutheranism was a “moderate
Reformation.” While all protestants appealed to the Bible as a final
authority, the tendency in Lutheranism was to keep as much of the old
system as did not have to be thrown out, while the tendency in the
Reformed Church was to throw out all that did not have to be kept. And
in regard to the relationship which existed between the Church and the
State, the Lutherans were content to allow the local princes great
influence in the Church or even to allow them to determine the religion
within their bounds–a tendency leading toward the establishment of a
State Church–while the Reformed soon came to demand complete
separation between Church and State.

As stated before, the Reformation was essentially a revival of
Augustinianism. The early Lutheran and Reformed Churches held the same
views in regard to Original Sin, Election, Efficacious Grace,
Perseverance, etc. This, then, was the true Protestantism. “The
principle of Absolute Predestination,” says Hastie, “was the very
Hercules-might of the young Reformation, by which no less in Germany
than elsewhere, it strangled the serpents of superstition and idolatry;
and when it lost its energy in its first home, it still continued to be
the very marrow and backbone of the faith in the Reformed Church, and
the power that carried it victoriously through all its struggles and
trials.” [169] “It is a fact that speaks volumes for Calvinism,” says
Rice, “that the most glorious revolution recorded in the history of the
Church and of the world, since the days of the Apostles, was effected
by the blessings of God upon its doctrines.” [170] Needless to say,
Arminianism as a system was unknown in Reformation times; and not until
1784, some 260 years later, was it championed by an organized church.
As in the fifth century there had been two contending systems, known as
Augustinianism and Pelagianism, with the later rise of the compromised
system of Semi-Pelagianism, so at the Reformation there were two
systems, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, with the later rise of
Arminianism, or what we might call Semi-Protestantism. In each case
there were two strongly opposite systems with the subsequent rise of a
compromised system.

3. CALVINISM IN ENGLAND

A glance at English history readily shows us that it was Calvinism
which made Protestantism triumphant in that land. Many of the leading
Protestants who fled to Geneva during the reign of Queen Mary afterward
obtained high positions in the Church under Queen Elizabeth. Among them
were the translators of the Geneva version of the Bible, which owes
much to Calvin and Beza, and which continued to be the most popular
English version till the middle of the seventeenth century when it was
superseded by the King James version. The influence of Calvin is shown
in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, especially in
Article XVII which states the doctrine of Predestination. Cunningham
has shown that all of the great theologians of the Established Church
during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth were
thorough-going predestinarians and that the Arminianism of Laud and his
successors was a deviation from that original position.

If we search for the true heroes of England, we shall find them in that
noble body of English Calvinists whose insistence upon a purer form of
worship and a purer life won for them the nickname, “Puritans,” to whom
Macaulay refers as “perhaps the most remarkable body of men which the
world has ever produced.” “That the English people became Protestant,”
says Bancroft, “is due to the Puritans.” Smith tells us: “The
significance of this fact is beyond computation. English Protestantism,
with its open Bible, its spiritual and intellectual freedom, meant the
Protestantism not only of the American colonies, but of the virile and
multiplying race which for three centuries has been carrying the
Anglo-Saxon language, religion, and institutions into all the world.
[171]

Cromwell, the great Calvinistic leader and commoner, planted himself
upon the solid rock of Calvinism and called to himself soldiers who had
planted themselves upon that same rock. The result was an army which
for purity and heroism surpassed anything the world had ever seen. “It
never found,” says Macaulay, “either in the British Isles or on the
Continent, an enemy who could stand its onset. In England, Scotland,
Ireland, Flanders, the Puritan warriors, often surrounded by
difficulties, sometimes contending against threefold odds, not only
never failed to conquer, but never failed to destroy and break in
pieces whatever force was opposed to them. They at length came to
regard the day of battle as a day of certain triumph, and marched
against the most renowned battalions of Europe with disdainful
confidence. Even the banished Cavaliers felt an emotion of national
pride when they saw a brigade of their countrymen, outnumbered by foes
and abandoned by friends, drive before it in headlong rout the finest
infantry of Spain, and force a passage into a counterscarp which had
just been pronounced impregnable by the ablest of the marshals of
France.” And again, “That which chiefly distinguished the army of
Cromwell from other armies, was the austere morality and the fear of
God which pervaded the ranks. It is acknowledged by the most zealous
Royalists that, in that singular camp, no oath was heard, no
drunkenness or gambling was seen, and that, during the long dominion of
soldiery, the property of the peaceable citizens and the honor of woman
were held sacred. No servant girl complained of the rough gallantry of
the redcoats. Not an ounce of plate was taken from the shops of the
goldsmiths” [172]

Prof. John Fiske, who has been ranked as one of the two greatest
American historians, says, “It is not too much to say that in the
seventeenth century the entire political future of mankind was staked
upon the questions that were at issue in England. Had it not been for
the Puritans, political liberty would probably have disappeared from
the world. If ever there were men who laid down their lives in the
cause of all mankind, it was those grim old Ironsides, whose
watch-words were texts of Holy Writ, whose battle-cries were hymns of
praise.” [173]

On three different occasions Cromwell was offered, and was urged to
accept, the Crown of England, but each time he refused. Doctrinally we
find that the Puritans were the literal and lineal descendants of John
Calvin; and they and they alone kept alive the precious spark of
English liberty. In view of these facts no one can rashly deny the
justice of Fiske’s conclusion that “It would be hard to over-rate the
debt which mankind owes to John Calvin.”

McFetridge in his splendid little book, “Calvinism in History,” says,
“If we ask again, Who brought the final great deliverance to English
liberty? we are answered by history, The Illustrious Calvinist,
William, Prince of Orange, who, as Macaulay says, found in the strong
and sharp logic of the Geneva school something that suited his
intellect and his temper; the keystone of whose religion was the
doctrine of Predestination; and who, with his keen logical vision,
declared that if he were to abandon the doctrine of Predestination he
must abandon with it all his belief in a superintending Providence, and
must become a mere Epicurean. And he was right, for Predestination and
an overruling Providence are one and the same thing. If we accept the
one, we are in consistency bound to accept the other,” (P. 52).

4. CALVINISM IN SCOTLAND

The best way to discover the practical fruits of a system of religion
is to examine a people or a country in which for generations that
system has held undisputed sway. In making such a test of Roman
Catholicism we turn to some country like Spain, Italy, Colombia, or
Mexico. There, in the religious and political life of the people, we
see the effects of the system. Applying the same test to Calvinism we
are able to point to one country in which Calvinism has long been
practically the only religion, and that country is Scotland. McFetridge
tells us that before Calvinism reached Scotland, “gross darkness
covered the land and brooded like an eternal nightmare upon all the
faculties of the people.” [174] “When Calvinism reached the Scotch
people,” says Smith, “they were vassals of the Romish church,
priest-ridden, ignorant, wretched, degraded in body, mind, and morals.
Buckle describes them as ‘filthy in their persons and in their homes,’
‘poor and miserable,’ ‘excessively ignorant and exceedingly
superstitious,’–’with superstition ingrained into their characters.’
Marvelous was the transformation when the great doctrines learned by
Knox from the Bible in Scotland and more thoroughly at Geneva while
sitting at the feet of Calvin, flashed in upon their minds. It was like
the sun arising at midnight . . . Knox made Calvinism the religion of
Scotland, and Calvinism made Scotland the moral standard for the world.
It is certainly a significant fact that in that country where there is
the most of Calvinism there should be the least of crime; that of all
the people of the world today that nation which is confessedly the most
moral is also the most thoroughly Calvinistic; that in that land where
Calvinism has had supremest sway individual and national morality has
reached its loftiest level.” [175] Says Carlyle, “This that Knox did
for his nation we may really call a resurrection as from death.” “John
Knox,” says Froude, “was the one man without whom Scotland as the
modern world has known it, would have had no existence.”

In a very real sense the Presbyterian Church of Scotland is the
daughter of the Reformed Church of Geneva. The Reformation in Scotland,
though coming some time later, was far more consistent and radical than
in England, and it resulted in the establishment of a Calvinistic
Presbyterianism in which Christ alone was recognized as the head of the
Church.

It is, of course, an easy matter to pick out the one man who in the
hands of Providence was the principal instrument in the reformation of
Scotland. That man was John Knox. It was he who planted the germs of
religious and civil liberty and who revolutionized society. To him the
Scotch owe their national existence. “Knox was the greatest of
Scotsmen, as Luther the greatest of Germans,” says Philip Schaff. “The
hero of the Scotch Reformation,” says Schaff, “though four years older
than Calvin, sat humbly at his feet and became more Calvinistic than
Calvin. John Knox spent the five years of his exile (1554-1559), during
the reign of Bloody Mary, mostly at Geneva, and found there ‘the most
perfect school of Christ that ever was since the days of the Apostles.’
After that model he led the Scotch people, with dauntless courage and
energy, from mediaeval semi-barbarism into the light of modern
civilization, and acquired a name which, next to those of Luther,
Zwingli, and Calvin, is the greatest in the history of the Protestant
Reformation.” [176]

“No grander figure,” says Froude, “can be found in the entire history
of the Reformation in this island than that of Knox. . . . The time has
come when English history may do justice to one but for whom the
Reformation would have been overthrown among ourselves; for the spirit
which Knox created saved Scotland; and if Scotland had been Catholic
again, neither the wisdom of Elizabeth’s ministers, nor the teaching of
her bishops, nor her own chicaneries, would have preserved England from
revolution. He was the voice which taught the peasant of the Lothians
that he was a free man, the equal in the sight of God with the proudest
peer or prelate that had trampled on his forefathers. He was the
antagonist whom Mary Stuart could not soften nor Maitland deceive; he
it was that raised the poor commons of his country into a stern and
rugged people, who might be hard, narrow, superstitious and fanatical,
but who nevertheless, were men whom neither king, noble nor priest
could force again to submit to tyranny. And his reward has been the
ingratitude of those who should most have done honor to his memory.”
[177]

The early Scotch reformed theology was based on the predestinarian
principle. Knox had gotten his theology directly from Calvin in Geneva,
and his chief theological work was his treatise on Predestination,
which was a keen, forcible and unflinching polemic against loose views
which were becoming widespread in England and elsewhere. During the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries topics such as predestination,
election, reprobation, the extent and value of the atonement, the
perseverance of the saints, were the absorbing interest of the Scotch
peasantry. From that land those doctrines spread southward into parts
of England and Ireland and across the Atlantic to the west. In a very
real sense Scotland can be called the “Mother Country of modern
Presbyterianism.”

5. CALVINISM IN FRANCE

France, too, at that time, was all aglow with the free, bounding,
restless spirit of Calvinism. “In France the Calvinists were called
Huguenots. The character of the Huguenots the world knows. Their moral
purity and heroism, whether persecuted at home or exiled abroad, has
been the wonder of both friend and foe.” [178] “Their history,” says
the Encyclopaedia Britannica, “is a standing marvel, illustrating the
abiding power of strong religious conviction. The account of their
endurance is amongst the most remarkable and heroic records of
religious history.” The Huguenots made up the industrious artisan class
of France and to be “honest as a Huguenot” became a proverb, denoting
the highest degree of integrity.

On St. Bartholomew’s Day, Sunday, August 24, 1572, a great many
Protestants were treacherously murdered in Paris, and for days
thereafter the shocking scenes were repeated in different parts of
France. The total number of those who lost their lives in the St.
Bartholomew massacre has been variously estimated at from 10,000 to
50,000. Schaff estimates it at 30,000. These furious persecutions
caused hundreds of thousands of the French Protestants to flee to
Holland, Germany, England, and America. The loss to France was
irreparable. Macaulay the English historian writes as follows of those
who settled in England: “The humblest of the refugees were
intellectually and morally above the average of the common people of
any kingdom in Europe.” The great historian Lecky, who himself was a
cold-blooded rationalist, wrote: “The destruction of the Huguenots by
the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes was the destruction of the most
solid, the most modest, the most virtuous, the most generally
enlightened element in the French nation, and it prepared the way for
the inevitable degradation of the national character, and the last
serious bulwark was removed that might have broken the force of that
torrent of skepticism and vice which, a century later, laid prostrate,
in merited ruin, both the altar and the throne.” [179]

“If you have read their history,” says Warburton, “you must know how
cruel and unjust were the persecutions instigated against them. The
best blood of France deluged the battlefield, the brightest genius of
France was suffered to lie neglected and starving in prison, and the
noblest characters which France ever possessed were hunted like wild
beasts of the forest, and slain with as little pity.” And again, “In
every respect they stood immeasurably superior to all the rest of their
fellow-countrymen. The strict sobriety of their lives, the purity of
their moral actions, their industrious habits, and their entire
separation from the foul sensuality which corrupted the whole of the
national life of France at this period, were always effectual means of
betraying the principles which they held, and were so regarded by their
enemies.” [180]

The debauchery of the kings had descended through the aristocracy to
the common people; religion had become a mass of corruption, consistent
only with its cruelty; the monasteries had become breeding places of
iniquity; celibacy had proved to be a foul fountain of unchastity and
uncleanness; immorality, licentiousness, despotism and extortion in
State and Church were indescribable; the forgiveness of sins could be
purchased for money, and a shameful traffic in indulgences was carried
on under the pope’s sanction; some of the popes were monsters of
iniquity; ignorance was appalling; education was confined to the clergy
and the nobles; many even of the priests were unable to read or write;
and society in general had fallen to pieces.

This is a one-sided, but not an exaggerated, description. It is true as
far as it goes, and needs only to be supplemented by the brighter side,
which was that many honest Roman Catholics were earnestly working for
reform from within the Church. The Church, however, was in an
irreformable condition. Any change, if it was to come at all, had to
come from without. Either there would be no reformation or it would be
in opposition to Rome.

But gradually Protestant ideas were filtering into France from Germany.
Calvin began his work in Paris and was soon recognized as one of the
leaders of the new movement in France. His zeal aroused the opposition
of Church authorities and it became necessary for him to flee for his
life. And although Calvin never returned to France after his settlement
in Geneva, he remained the leader of the French Reformation and was
consulted at every step. He gave the Huguenots their creed and form of
government. Throughout the following period it was, according to the
unanimous testimony of history, the system of faith which we call
Calvinism that inspired the French Protestants in their struggle with
the papacy and its royal supporters.

What the Puritan was in England, the Covenanter was in Scotland, and
the Huguenot was in France. That Calvinism developed the same type of
men in each of these several countries is a most remarkable proof of
its power in the formation of character.

So rapidly did Calvinism spread throughout France that Fisher in his
History of the Reformation tells us that in 1561 the Calvinists
numbered one-fourth of the entire population. McFetridge places the
number even higher. “In less than half a century,” says he, “this
so-called harsh system of belief had penetrated every part of the land,
and had gained to its standards almost one-half of the population and
almost every great mind in the nation. So numerous and powerful had its
adherents become that for a time it appeared as if the entire nation
would be swept over to their views.” [181] Smiles, in his “Huguenots in
France,” writes: “It is curious to speculate on the influence which the
religion of Calvin, himself a Frenchman, might have exercised on the
history of France, as well as on the individual character of the
Frenchman, had the balance of forces carried the nation bodily over to
Protestantism, as was very nearly the case, toward the end of the
sixteenth century,” (p. 100). Certainly the history of the nation would
have been very different from that which it has been.

6. CALVINISM IN HOLLAND

In the struggle which freed the Netherlands from the dominating power
of the Papacy and from the cruel yoke of Spain we have another glorious
chapter in the history of Calvinism and humanity. The tortures of the
Inquisition were applied here as in few other places. The Duke of Alva
boasted that within the short space of five years he had delivered
18,600 heretics to the executioner.

“The scaffold,” says Motley, “had its daily victims, but did not make a
single convert. . . . There were men who dared and suffered as much as
men can dare and suffer in this world, and for the noblest cause that
can inspire humanity.” He pictures to us “the heroism with which men
took each other by the hand and walked into the flames, or with which
women sang a song of triumph while the grave-digger was shoveling the
earth upon their living faces.” And in another place he says: “The
number of Netherlanders who were burned, strangled, beheaded, or buried
alive, in obedience to the edicts of Charles V., and for the offence of
reading the Scriptures, of looking askance at a graven image, or
ridiculing the actual presence of the body and blood of Christ in a
wafer, have been placed as high as one hundred thousand by
distinguished authorities, and have never been put at a lower mark than
fifty thousand.” [182] During that memorable struggle of eighty years,
more Protestants were put to death for their conscientious belief by
the Spaniards than Christians suffered martyrdom under the Roman
Emperors in the first three centuries. Certainly in Holland history
crowns Calvinism as the creed of martyrs, saints and heroes.

For nearly three generations Spain, the strongest nation in Europe at
that time, labored to stamp out Protestantism and political liberty in
these Calvinistic Netherlands, but failed. Because they sought to
worship God according to the dictates of their conscience and not under
the galling chains of a corrupt priesthood their country was invaded
and the people were subjected to the cruelest tortures the Spaniards
could invent. And if it be asked who effected the deliverance, the
answer is, it was the Calvinistic Prince of Orange, known in history as
William the Silent, together with those who held the same creed. Says
Dr. Abraham Kuyper, “If the power of Satan at that time had not been
broken by the heroism of the Calvinistic spirit, the history of the
Netherlands, of Europe and of the world would have been as painfully
sad and dark as now, thanks to Calvinism, it is bright and inspiring.”
[183]

If the spirit of Calvinism had not arisen in Western Europe following
the outbreak of the Reformation, the spirit of half-heartedness would
have gained the day in England, Scotland and Holland. Protestantism in
these countries could not have maintained itself; and, through the
compromising measures of a Romanized Protestantism, Germany would in
all probability have been again brought under the sway of the Roman
Catholic Church. Had Protestantism failed in any one of these countries
it is probable that the result would have been fatal in the others
also, so intimately were their fortunes bound together. In a very real
sense the future destiny of nations was dependent on the outcome of
that struggle in the Netherlands. Had Spain been victorious in the
Netherlands, it is probable that the Catholic Church would have been so
strengthened that it would have subdued Protestantism in England also.
And, even as things were, it looked for a time as though England would
be turned back to Romanism. In that case the development of America
would automatically have been prevented and in all probability the
whole American continent would have remained under the control of
Spain.

Let us remember further that practically all of the martyrs in these
various countries were Calvinists,–the Lutherans and Arminians being
only a handful in comparison. As Professor Fruin justly remarks, “In
Switzerland, in France, in the Netherlands, in Scotland and in England,
and wherever Protestantism has had to establish itself at the point of
the sword, it was Calvinism that gained the day.” However the fact is
to be explained it is true that the Calvinists were the only fighting
Protestants.

There is also one other service which Holland has rendered and which we
must not overlook. The Pilgrims, after being driven out of England by
religious persecutions and before their coming to America, went to
Holland and there came into contact with a religious life which from
the Calvinistic point of view was beneficial in the extreme. Their most
important leaders were Clyfton, Robinson, and Brewster, three Cambridge
University men, who form as noble and heroic trio as can be found in
the history of any nation. They were staunch Calvinists holding all the
fundamental views that the Reformer of Geneva had propounded. The
American historian Bancroft is right when he simply calls the
Pilgrim-fathers, “men of the same faith with Calvin.”

J. C. Monsma, in his book, “What Calvinism Has Done For America,” gives
us the following summary of their life in Holland: “When the Pilgrims
left Amsterdam for Leyden, the Rev. Clyfton, their chief leader,
decided to stay where he was, and so the Rev. John Robinson, Clyfton’s
chief assistant hitherto,” was elected leader, or pastor by the people.
Robinson was a convinced Calvinist and opposed the teachings of
Arminius whenever opportunity was afforded him. “We have the
indisputable testimony of Edward Winslow, that Robinson, at the time
when Arminianism was fast gaining ground in Holland, was asked by
Polyander, Festus Homilus, and other Dutch theologians, to take part in
the disputes with Episcopius, the new leader of the Arminians, which
were daily held in the academy at Leyden. Robinson complied with their
request and was soon looked upon as one of the greatest of Gomarian
theologians. In 1624 the Pilgrim pastor wrote a masterful treatise,
entitled, “A Defense of the Doctrine Propounded by the Synod of Dort,
etc.’ As the Synod of Dordrecht, of international fame was
characterized by a strict Calvinism in all its decisions, no more need
be said of Robinson’s religious tendencies.

“The Pilgrims were perfectly at one with the Reformed (Calvinistic)
churches in the Netherlands and elsewhere. In his Apology, published in
1619, one year before the Pilgrims left Holland, Robinson wrote in a
most solemn way, ‘We do profess before God and men that such is our
accord, in case of religion, with the Dutch Reformed Churches, as that
we are ready to subscribe to all and every article of faith in the same
Church, as they are laid down in the Harmony of Confessions of Faith,
published in that name.’” (p. 72, 73.)

7. CALVINISM IN AMERICA

When we come to study the influence of Calvinism as a political force
in the history of the United States we come to one of the brightest
pages of all Calvinistic history. Calvinism came to America in the
Mayflower, and Bancroft, the greatest of American historians,
pronounces the Pilgrim Fathers “Calvinists in their faith according to
the straightest system.” [184] John Endicott, the first governor of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony; John Winthrop, the second governor of that
Colony; Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut; John Davenport, the
founder of the New Haven Colony; and Roger Williams, the founder of the
Rhode Island Colony, were all Calvinists. William Penn was a disciple
of the Huguenots. It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at
the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or
Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were
German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a
Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French
Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about
two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of
Calvin. Never in the world’s history had a nation been founded by such
people as these. Furthermore these people came to America not primarily
for commercial gain or advantage, but because of deep religious
convictions. It seems that the religious persecutions in various
European countries had been providentially used to select out the most
progressive and enlightened people for the colonization of America. At
any rate it is quite generally admitted that the English, Scotch,
Germans, and Dutch have been the most masterful people of Europe. Let
it be especially remembered that the Puritans, who formed the great
bulk of the settlers in New England, brought with them a Calvinistic
Protestantism, that they were truly devoted to the doctrines of the
great Reformers, that they had an aversion for formalism and oppression
whether in the Church or in the State, and that in New England
Calvinism remained the ruling theology throughout the entire Colonial
period.

With this background we shall not be surprised to find that the
Presbyterians took a very prominent part in the American Revolution.
Our own historian Bancroft says: “The Revolution of 1776, so far as it
was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the
natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the
Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch
Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the
Presbyterians of Ulster.” So intense, universal, and aggressive were
the Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was spoken of
in England as “The Presbyterian Rebellion.” An ardent colonial
supporter of King George III wrote home: “I fix all the blame for these
extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the
chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. They
always do and ever will act against government from that restless and
turbulent anti-monarchial spirit which has always distinguished them
everywhere.” [185] When the news of “these extraordinary proceedings”
reached England, Prime Minister Horace Walpole said in Parliament,
“Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson.”

“The Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, a native of Scotland and a lineal
descendant of John Knox, was, in the revolutionary time, president of
Princeton College, and was the only clerical member of the
Revolutionary Congress. He, as might be expected, earnestly and
eloquently supported every measure adopted by Congress for securing
independence. When the important moment came for signing the
Declaration, and some of the members were hesitating to affix their
names to it, he delivered an eloquent appeal, in which he said: ‘That
noble instrument upon your table, which insures immortality to its
author, should be subscribed this very morning by every pen in the
house. He that will not respond to its accents, and strain every nerve
to carry into effect its provisions, is unworthy the name of a freeman.
For my own part, of property I have some, of reputation more. That
reputation is staked, that property is pledged, on the issue of this
contest. And although these gray hairs must soon descend into the
sepulchre, I would infinitely rather they should descend thither by the
hand of the public executioner than desert at this crisis the sacred
cause of my country.’” [186]

History is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of
Christianity and that that Christianity was Calvinism. The great
Revolutionary conflict which resulted in the formation of the American
nation, was carried out mainly by Calvinists, many of whom had been
trained in the rigidly Presbyterian College at Princeton, and this
nation is their gift to all liberty loving people.

“The Principles of the Republic of the United States,” says Schaff,”
can be traced through the intervening link of Puritanism to Calvinism,
which, with all its theological rigor, has been the chief educator of
manly character and promoter of constitutional freedom in modern
times.” [187]

The testimony of Emilio Castelar, the famous Spanish statesman, orator
and scholar, is interesting and valuable. Castelar had been professor
of Philosophy in the University of Madrid before he entered politics,
and he was made president of the republic which was set up by the
Liberals in 1873. As a Roman Catholic he hated Calvin and Calvinism.
Says he: “It was necessary for the republican movement that there
should come a morality more austere than Luther’s, the morality of
Calvin, and a Church more democratic than the German, the Church of
Geneva. The Anglo-Saxon democracy has for its lineage a book of a
primitive society–the Bible. It is the product of a severe theology
learned by the few Christian fugitives in the gloomy cities of Holland
and Switzerland, where the morose shade of Calvin still wanders . . .
And it remains serenely in its grandeur, forming the most dignified,
most moral and most enlightened portion of the human race.” [188] We
feel like asking Castelar how a fountain so bitter could send forth
such sweet waters.

Says Motley: “In England the seeds of liberty, wrapped up in Calvinism
and hoarded through many trying years, were at last destined to float
over land and sea, and to bear the largest harvests of temperate
freedom for great commonwealths that were still unborn.” [189] “The
Calvinists founded the commonwealths of England, of Holland, and
America.” And again, “To Calvinists more than to any other class of
men, the political liberties of England, Holland and America are due.”
[190]

The testimony of another famous historian, the Frenchman Taine, who
himself held no religious faith, is worthy of consideration. Concerning
the Calvinists he said: “These men are the true heroes of England. They
founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the
exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by
vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of
liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded
the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding
Australia and colonizing the world.” [191]

In his book, “The Creed of Presbyterians,” E. W. Smith asks concerning
the American colonists, “Where learned they those immortal principles
of the rights of man, of human liberty, equality and self-government,
on which they based their Republic, and which form today the
distinctive glory of our American civilization? In the school of Calvin
they learned them. There the modern world learned them. So history
teaches,” (p. 121).

We shall now pass on to consider the influence which the Presbyterian
Church as a Church exerted in the formation of the Republic. “The
Presbyterian Church,” said Dr. W. H. Roberts in an address before the
General Assembly, “was for three-quarters of a century the sole
representative upon this continent of republican government as now
organized in the nation.” And then he continues: “From 1706 to the
opening of the revolutionary struggle the only body in existence which
stood for our present national political organization was the General
Synod of the American Presbyterian Church. It alone among
ecclesiastical and political colonial organizations exercised
authority, derived from the colonists themselves, over bodies of
Americans scattered through all the colonies from New England to
Georgia. The colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it
is to be remembered, while all dependent upon Great Britain, were
independent of each other. Such a body as the Continental Congress did
not exist until 1774. The religious condition of the country was
similar to the political. The Congregational Churches of New England
had no connection with each other, and had no power apart from the
civil government. The Episcopal Church was without organization in the
colonies, was dependent for support and a ministry on the Established
Church of England, and was filled with an intense loyalty to the
British monarchy. The Reformed Dutch Church did not become an efficient
and independent organization until 1771, and the German Reformed Church
did not attain to that condition until 1793. The Baptist Churches were
separate organizations, the Methodists were practically unknown, and
the Quakers were non-combatants.”

Delegates met every year in the General Synod, and as Dr. Roberts tells
us, the Church became “a bond of union and correspondence between large
elements in the population of the divided colonies.” “Is it any
wonder,” he continues, “that under its fostering influence the
sentiments of true liberty, as well as the tenets of a sound gospel,
were preached throughout the territory from Long Island to South
Carolina, and that above all a feeling of unity between the Colonies
began slowly but surely to assert itself? Too much emphasis cannot be
laid, in connection with the origin of the nation, upon the influence
of that ecclesiastical republic, which from 1706 to 1774 was the only
representative on this continent of fully developed federal republican
institutions. The United States of America owes much to that oldest of
American Republics, the Presbyterian Church.” [192]

It is, of course, not claimed that the Presbyterian Church was the only
source from which sprang the principles upon which this republic is
founded, but it is claimed that the principles found in the Westminster
Standards were the chief basis for the republic, and that “The
Presbyterian Church taught, practiced, and maintained in fulness, first
in this land that form of government in accordance with which the
Republic has been organized.” (Roberts).

The opening of the Revolutionary struggle found the Presbyterian
ministers and churches lined up solidly on the side of the colonists,
and Bancroft accredits them with having made the first bold move toward
independence. [193] The synod which assembled in Philadelphia in 1775
was the first religious body to declare openly and publicly for a
separation from England. It urged the people under its jurisdiction to
leave nothing undone that would promote the end in view, and called
upon them to pray for the Congress which was then in session.

The Episcopalian Church was then still united with the Church of
England, and it opposed the Revolution. A considerable number of
individuals within that Church, however, labored earnestly for
independence and gave of their wealth and influence to secure it. It is
to be remembered also that the Commander-in-Chief of the American
armies, “the father of our country,” was a member of her household.
Washington himself attended, and ordered all of his men to attend the
services of his chaplains, who were clergymen from the various
churches. He gave forty thousand dollars to establish a Presbyterian
College in his native state, which took his name in honor of the gift
and became Washington College.

N. S. McFetridge has thrown light upon another major development of the
Revolutionary period. For the sake of accuracy and completeness we
shall take the privilege of quoting him rather extensively. “Another
important factor in the independent movement,” says he, “was what is
known as the ‘Mecklenburg Declaration,’ proclaimed by the Scotch-Irish
Presbyterians of North Carolina, May 20, 1775, more than a year before
the Declaration (of Independence) of Congress. It was the fresh, hearty
greeting of the Scotch-Irish to their struggling brethren in the North,
and their bold challenge to the power of England. They had been keenly
watching the progress of the contest between the colonies and the
Crown, and when they heard of the address presented by the Congress to
the King, declaring the colonies in actual rebellion, they deemed it
time for patriots to speak. Accordingly, they called a representative
body together in Charlotte, N. C., which by unanimous resolution
declared the people free and independent, and that all laws and
commissions from the king were henceforth null and void. In their
Declaration were such resolutions as these: ‘We do hereby dissolve the
political bands which have connected us with the mother-country, and
hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British crown. . .
. ‘We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and
of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing association, under
control of no power other than that of our God and the general
government of Congress; to the maintenance of which we solemnly pledge
to each other our mutual cooperation and our lives, our fortunes and
our most sacred honor.’ . . . That assembly was composed of
twenty-seven staunch Calvinists, just one-third of whom were ruling
elders in the Presbyterian Church, including the president and
secretary; and one was a Presbyterian clergyman. The man who drew up
that famous and important document was the secretary, Ephraim Brevard,
a ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church and a graduate of Princeton
College. Bancroft says of it that it was, ‘in effect, a declaration as
well as a complete system of government.’ (U.S. Hist. VIII, 40). It was
sent by special messenger to the Congress in Philadelphia, and was
published in the Cape Fear Mercury, and was widely distributed
throughout the land. Of course it was speedily transmitted to England,
where it became the cause of intense excitement.

“The identity of sentiment and similarity of expression in this
Declaration and the great Declaration written by Jefferson could not
escape the eye of the historian; hence Tucker, in his Life of
Jefferson, says: ‘Everyone must be persuaded that one of these papers
must have been borrowed from the other.’ But it is certain that Brevard
could not have ‘borrowed’ from Jefferson, for he wrote more than a year
before Jefferson; hence Jefferson, according to his biographer, must
have ‘borrowed’ from Brevard. But it was a happy plagiarism, for which
the world will freely forgive him. In correcting his first draft of the
Declaration it can be seen, in at least a few places, that Jefferson
has erased the original words and inserted those which are first found
in the Mecklenberg Declaration. No one can doubt that Jefferson had
Brevard’s resolutions before him when he was writing his immortal
Declaration.” [194]

This striking similarity between the principles set forth in the Form
of Government of the Presbyterian Church and those set forth in the
Constitution of the United States has caused much comment. “When the
fathers of our Republic sat down to frame a system of representative
and popular government,” says Dr. E. W. Smith, “their task was not so
difficult as some have imagined. They had a model to work by.” [195]

“If the average American citizen were asked, who was the founder of
America, the true author of our great Republic, he might be puzzled to
answer. We can imagine his amazement at hearing the answer given to
this question by the famous German historian, Ranke, one of the
profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke, ‘John Calvin was the
virtual founder of America.’” [196]

D’Aubigne, whose history of the Reformation is a classic, writes:
“Calvin was the founder of the greatest of republics. The Pilgrims who
left their country in the reign of James I, and landing on the barren
soil of New England, founded populous and mighty colonies, were his
sons, his direct and legitimate sons; and that American nation which we
have seen growing so rapidly boasts as its father the humble Reformer
on the shore of Lake Leman.” [197]

Dr. E. W. Smith says, “These revolutionary principles of republican
liberty and self-government, taught and embodied in the system of
Calvin, were brought to America, and in this new land where they have
borne so mighty a harvest were planted, by whose hands?–the hands of
the Calvinists. The vital relation of Calvin and Calvinism to the
founding of the free institutions of America, however strange in some
ears the statement of Ranke may have sounded, is recognized and
affirmed by historians of all lands and creeds.” [198]

All this has been thoroughly understood and candidly acknowledged by
such penetrating and philosophic historians as Bancroft, who far though
he was from being Calvinistic in his own personal convictions, simply
calls Calvin “the father of America,” and adds: “He who will not honor
the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the
origin of American liberty.”

When we remember that two-thirds of the population at the time of the
Revolution had been trained in the school of Calvin, and when we
remember how unitedly and enthusiastically the Calvinists labored for
the cause of independence, we readily see how true are the above
testimonies.

There were practically no Methodists in America at the time of the
Revolution; and, in fact, the Methodist Church was not officially
organized as such in England until the year 1784, which was three years
after the American Revolution closed. John Wesley, great and good man
though he was, was a Tory and a believer in political non-resistance.
He wrote against the American “rebellion,” but accepted the
providential result. McFetridge tells us: “The Methodists had hardly a
foothold in the colonies when the war began. In 1773 they claimed about
one hundred and sixty members. Their ministers were almost all, if not
all, from England, and were staunch supporters of the Crown against
American Independence. Hence, when the war broke out they were
compelled to fly from the country. Their political views were naturally
in accord with those of their great leader, John Wesley, who wielded
all the power of his eloquence and influence against the independence
of the colonies. (Bancroft, Hist. U.S., Vol. VII, p. 261.) He did not
foresee that independent America was to be the field on which his noble
Church was to reap her largest harvests, and that in that Declaration
which he so earnestly opposed lay the security of the liberties of his
followers.” [199]

In England and America the great struggles for civil and religious
liberty were nursed in Calvinism, inspired by Calvinism, and carried
out largely by men who were Calvinists. And because the majority of
historians have never made a serious study of Calvinism they have never
been able to give us a truthful and complete account of what it has
done in these countries. Only the light of historical investigation is
needed to show us how our forefathers believed in it and were
controlled by it. We live in a day when the services of the Calvinists
in the founding of this country have been largely forgotten, and one
can hardly treat of this subject without appearing to be a mere
eulogizer of Calvinism. We may well do honor to that Creed which has
borne such sweet fruits and to which America owes so much.

8. CALVINISM AND REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT

While religious and civil liberty have no organic connection, they
nevertheless have a very strong affinity for each other; and where one
is lacking the other will not long endure. History is eloquent in
declaring that on a people’s religion ever depends their freedom or
their bondage. It is a matter of supreme importance what doctrines they
believe, what principles they adopt: for these must serve as the basis
upon which the superstructure of their lives and their government
rests. Calvinism was revolutionary. It taught the natural equality of
men, and its essential tendency was to destroy all distinctions of rank
and all claims to superiority which rested upon wealth or vested
privilege. The liberty-loving soul of the Calvinist has made him a
crusader against those artificial distinctions which raise some men
above others.

Politically, Calvinism has been the chief source of modern republican
government. Calvinism and republicanism are related to each other as
cause and effect; and where a people are possessed of the former, the
latter will soon be developed. Calvin himself held that the Church,
under God, was a spiritual republic; and certainly he was a republican
in theory. James I was well aware of the effects of Calvinism when he
said: “Presbytery agreeth as well with the monarchy as God with the
Devil.” Bancroft speaks of “the political character of Calvinism, which
with one consent and with instinctive judgment the monarchs of that day
feared as republicanism.” Another American historian, John Fiske, has
written, “It would be hard to overrate the debt which mankind owes to
Calvin. The spiritual father of Coligny, of William the Silent, and of
Cromwell, must occupy a foremost rank among the champions of modern
democracy …. The promulgation of this theology was one of the longest
steps that mankind has ever taken toward personal freedom.” [200]
Emilio Castelar, the leader of the Spanish Liberals, says that
“Anglo-Saxon democracy is the product of a severe theology, learned in
the cities of Holland and Switzerland.” Buckle, in his History of
Civilization says, “Calvinism is essentially democratic,” (I, 669). And
de Tocqueville, an able political writer, calls it “A democratic and
republican religion.” [201]

The system not only imbued its converts with the spirit of liberty, but
it gave them practical training in the rights and duties as freemen.
Each congregation was left to elect its own officers and to conduct its
own affairs. Fiske pronounces it, “one of the most effective schools
that has ever existed for training men in local serf-government.” [202]
Spiritual freedom is the source and strength of all other freedom, and
it need cause no surprise when we are told that the principles which
governed them in ecclesiastical affairs gave shape to their political
views. Instinctively they preferred a representative government and
stubbornly resisted all unjust rulers. After religious despotism is
overthrown, civil despotism cannot long continue.

We may say that the spiritual republic which was founded by Calvin
rests upon four basic principles. These have been summed up by an
eminent English statesman and jurist, Sir James Stephen, as follows:
“These principles were, firstly that the will of the people was the one
legitimate source of the power of the rulers; secondly, that the power
was most properly delegated by the people, to their rulers, by means of
elections, in which every adult man might exercise the right of
suffrage; thirdly, that in ecclesiastical government, the clergy and
laity were entitled to an equal and co-ordinate authority; and fourthly
that between the Church and State, no alliance, or mutual dependence,
or other definite relation, necessarily or properly existed.” [203]

The principle of the sovereignty of God when applied to the affairs of
government proved to be very important. God as the supreme Ruler, was
vested with sovereignty; and whatever sovereignty was found in man had
been graciously granted to him. The scriptures were taken as the final
authority, as containing eternal principles which were regulative for
all ages and on all peoples. In the following words the Scriptures
declared the State to be a divinely established institution: “Let every
soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but
of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that
resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God; and they that
withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a
terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldst thou have no fear
of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise for the
same: for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that
which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he
is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.
Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the
wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause ye pay tribute
also; for they are ministers of God’s service, attending continually
upon this very thing. Render to all their dues; custom to whom custom;
fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor,” Romans 13:1-7.

No one type of government, however, whether democracy, republic, or
monarchy, was thought to be divinely ordained for any certain age or
people, although Calvinism showed a preference for the republican type.
“Whatever the system of government,” says Meeter, “be it monarchy or
democracy or any other form, in each case the ruler (or rulers) was to
act as God’s representative, and to administer the affairs of
government in accordance with God’s law. The fundamental principle
supplied at the same time the very highest incentive for the
preservation of law and order among its citizens. Subjects were for
God’s sake to render obedience to the higher powers, whichever these
might be. Hence Calvinism made for highly stabilized governments.

“On the other hand this very principle of the sovereignty of God
operated as a mighty defense of the liberties of the subject citizens
against tyrannical rulers. Whenever sovereigns ignored the Will of God,
trampled upon the rights of the governed and became tyrannical, it
became the privilege and the duty of the subjects, in view of the
higher responsibility of the supreme Sovereign, God, to refuse
obedience and even, if necessary, to depose the tyrant, through the
lesser authorities appointed by God for the defense of the rights of
the governed.” [204]

The Calvinistic ideas concerning governments and rulers have been ably
expressed by J. C. Monsma in the following lucid paragraph:
“Governments are instituted by God through the instrumentality of the
people. No kaiser or president has any power inherent in himself;
whatever power he possesses, whatever sovereignty he exercises, is
power and sovereignty derived from the great Source above. No might,
but right, and right springing from the eternal Fountain of justice.
For the Calvinist it is extremely easy to respect the laws and
ordinances of the government. If the government were nothing but a
group of men, bound to carry out the wishes of a popular majority, his
freedom-loving soul would rebel. But now, to his mind, and according to
his fixed belief,–back of the government stands God, and before Him he
kneels in deepest reverence. Here also lies the fundamental reason for
that profound and almost fanatical love of freedom, also the political
freedom, which has always been a characteristic of the genuine
Calvinist. The government is God’s servant. That means that AS MEN all
government officials stand on an equal footing with their subordinates;
have no claim to superiority in any sense whatever For exactly the same
reason the Calvinist gives preference to a republican form of
government over any other type. In no other form of government does the
sovereignty of God, the derivative character of government powers and
the equality of men as men, find a clearer and more eloquent
expression.” [205]

The theology of the Calvinist exalted one Sovereign and humbled all
other sovereigns before His awful majesty. The divine right of kings
and the infallible decrees of popes could not long endure amid a people
who place sovereignty in God alone. But while this theology infinitely
exalted God as the Almighty Ruler of heaven and earth and humbled all
men before Him, it enhanced the dignity of the individual and taught
him that all men as men were equal. The Calvinist feared God; and
fearing God he feared nobody else. Knowing himself to have been chosen
in the counsels of eternity and marked for the glories of heaven, he
possessed something which dissipated the feeling of personal homage for
men and which dulled the lustre of all earthly grandeur. If a proud
aristocracy traced its lineage through generations of highborn
ancestry, the Calvinists, with a loftier pride, invaded the invisible
world, and from the book of life brought down the record of the noblest
enfranchisement, decreed from eternity by the King of kings. By a
higher than any earthly lineage they were heaven’s noblemen because
God’s sons and priests, joint heirs with Christ, kings and priests unto
God, by a divine anointing and consecration. Put the truth of the
sovereignty of God into a man’s mind and heart, and you put iron in his
blood. The Reformed Faith has rendered a most valuable service in
teaching the individual his rights.

In striking contrast with these democratic and republican tendencies
which are found to be inherent in the Reformed Faith we find that
Arminianism has a very pronounced aristocratic tendency. In the
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches the elder votes in Presbytery or
Synod or General Assembly on full equality with his pastor; but in
Arminian churches the power is largely in the hands of the clergy, and
the laymen have very little real authority. Episcopacy stresses rule by
the hierarchy. Arminianism and Roman Catholicism (which is practically
Arminian) thrive under a monarchy, but there Calvinism finds its life
cramped. On the other hand Romanism especially does not thrive in a
republic, but there Calvinism finds itself most at home. An
aristocratic form of church government tends toward monarchy in civil
affairs, while a republican form of church government tends toward
democracy in civil affairs. Says McFetridge, “Arminianism is
unfavorable to civil liberty, and Calvinism is unfavorable to
despotism. The despotic rulers of former days were not slow to observe
the correctness of these propositions, and, claiming the divine right
of kings, feared Calvinism as republicanism itself.” [206]

9. CALVINISM AND EDUCATION

Again, history bears very clear testimony that Calvinism and education
have been intimately associated. Wherever Calvinism has gone it has
carried the school with it and has given a powerful impulse to popular
education. It is a system which demands intellectual manhood. In fact,
we may say that its very existence is tied up with the education of the
people. Mental training is required to master the system and to trace
out all that it involves. It makes the strongest possible appeal to the
human reason and insists that man must love God not only with his whole
heart but also with his whole mind. Calvin held that “a true faith must
be an intelligent faith”; and experience has shown that piety without
learning is in the long run about as dangerous as learning without
piety. He saw clearly that the acceptance and diffusion of his scheme
of doctrine was dependent not only upon the training of the men who
were to expound it, but also upon the intelligence of the great masses
of humanity who were to accept it. Calvin crowned his work in Geneva in
the establishment of the Academy. Thousands of pilgrim pupils from
Continental Europe and from the British Isles sat at his feet and then
carried his doctrines into every corner of Christendom. Knox returned
from Geneva fully convinced that the education of the masses was the
strongest bulwark of Protestantism and the surest foundation of the
State. “With Romanism goes the priest; with Calvinism goes the
teacher,” is an old saying, the truthfulness of which will not be
denied by anyone who has examined the facts.

This Calvinistic love for learning, putting mind above money, has
inspired countless numbers of Calvinistic families in Scotland, in
England, in Holland, and in America, to pinch themselves to the bone in
order to educate their children. The famous dictum of Carlyle, “That
any being with capacity for knowledge should die i gnorant, this I call
a tragedy,” expresses an idea which is Calvinistic to the core.
Wherever Calvinism has gone, there knowledge and learning have been
encouraged and there a sturdy race of thinkers has been trained.
Calvinists have not been the builders of great cathedrals, but they
have been the builders of schools, colleges, and universities. When the
Puritans from England, the Covenanters from Scotland, and the Reformed
from Holland and Germany, came to America they brought with them not
only the Bible and the Westminster Confession but also the school. And
that is why our American Calvinism never

“Dreads the skeptic’s puny hands,

While near her school the church spire stands,

Nor fears the blinded bigot’s rule,

While near her church spire stands a school.”

Our three American universities of greatest historical importance,
Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, were originally founded by Calvinists, as
strong Calvinistic schools, designed to give students a sound basis in
theology as well as in other branches of learning. Harvard, established
in 1636, was intended primarily to be a training school for ministers,
and more than half of its first graduating classes went into the
ministry. Yale, sometimes referred to as “the mother of Colleges,” was
for a considerable period a rigid Puritan institution. And Princeton,
founded by the Scotch Presbyterians, had a thoroughly Calvinistic
foundation.

“We boast,” says Bancroft, “of our common schools; Calvin was the
father of popular education–the inventor of the system of free
schools.” [207] “Wherever Calvinism gained dominion,” he says again,
“it invoked intelligence for the people and in every parish planted the
common school.” [208]

“Our boasted common-school system,” says Smith, “is indebted for its
existence to that stream of influences which followed from the Geneva
of Calvin, through Scotland and Holland to America; and, for the first
two hundred years of our history almost every college and seminary of
learning and almost every academy and common school was built and
sustained by Calvinists.” [209]

The relationship which Calvinism bears to education has been well
stated in the two following paragraphs by Prof. H. H. Meeter, of Calvin
College: “Science and art were the gifts of God’s common grace, and
were to be used and developed as such. Nature was looked upon as God’s
handiwork, the embodiment of His ideas, in its pure form the reflection
of His virtues. God was the unifying thought of all science, since all
was the unfolding of His plan. But along with such theoretical reasons
there are very practical reasons why the Calvinist has always been
intense1y interested in education, and why grade schools for children
as well as schools of higher learning sprang up side by side with
Calvinistic churches, and why Calvinists were in so large measure the
vanguard of the modern universal education movement. These practical
reasons are closely associated with their religion. The Roman Catholics
might conveniently do without the education of the masses. For them the
clergy–in distinction from the laity–were the ones who were to decide
upon matters of church government and doctrine. Hence these interests
did not require the training of the masses. For salvation, all that the
layman needed was an implied faith in what the church believed. It was
not necessary to be able to give an intelligent account of the tenets
of his faith. At the services not the sermon but the sacrament was the
important conveyor of the blessings of salvation, the sermon was less
needed. And this sacrament again did not require intelligence, since it
operated ex opere operato.

“For the Calvinist matters were just reversed. The government of the
church was placed in the hands of the elders, laymen, and these had to
decide upon the matters of church policy and the weighty matters of
doctrine. Furthermore, the layman himself had the grave duty, without
the intermediation of a sacerdotal order, to work out his own
salvation, and could not suffice with an implied faith in what the
church believed. He must read his Bible. He must know his creed. And it
was a highly intellectual erred at that. Even for the Lutheran,
education of the masses was not as urgent as for the Calvinist. It is
true, the Lutheran also placed every man before the personal
responsibility to work out his own salvation. But the laity were in the
Lutheran circles excluded from the office of church government and
hence also from the duty of deciding upon matters of doctrine. From
these considerations it is evident why the Calvinist must be a staunch
advocate of education. If on the one hand God was to be owned as
sovereign in the field of science, and if the Calvinist’s very
religious system required the education of the masses for its
existence, it need not surprise us that the Calvinist pressed learning
to the limit. Education is a question of to be or not to be for the
Calvinist.” [210]

The traditionally high standards of the Presbyterian and Reformed
Churches for ministerial training are worthy of notice. While many
other churches ordain men as ministers and missionaries and allow them
to preach with very little education, the Presbyterian and Reformed
Churches insist that the candidate for the ministry shall be a college
graduate and that he shall have studied for at least two years under
some approved professor of theology. (See Form of Government, Ch. XIV,
sec. III & VI). As a result a larger proportion of these ministers have
been capable of managing the affairs of the influential city churches.
This may mean fewer ministers but it also means a better prepared and a
better paid ministry.

10. JOHN CALVIN

John Calvin was born July 10, 1509, at Noyon, France, an ancient
cathedral city about seventy miles northeast of Paris. His father, a
man of rather hard and severe character, held the position as apostolic
secretary to the bishop of Noyon, and was intimate with the best
families of the neighborhood. His mother was noted for her beauty and
piety, but died in his early youth.

He received the best education which France at that time could give,
studying successively at the three leading universities of Orleans,
Bourges, and Paris, from 1528 to 1533. His father intended to prepare
him for the legal profession since that commonly raised those who
followed it to positions of wealth and influence. But not feeling any
particular calling to that field, young Calvin turned to the study of
Theology and there found the sphere of labor for which he was
particularly fitted by natural endowment and personal choice. He is
described as having been of a shy and retiring nature, very studious
and punctual in his work, animated by a strict sense of duty, and
exceedingly religious. He early showed himself possessed of an
intellect capable of clear, convincing argument and logical analysis.
Through excessive industry he stored his mind with valuable
information, but undermined his health. He advanced so rapidly that he
was occasionally asked to take the place of the professors, and was
considered by the other students as a doctor rather than an auditor. He
was, at this time, a devout Catholic of unblemished character. A
brilliant career as a humanist, or lawyer, or churchman, was opening
before him when he was suddenly converted to Protestantism, and cast in
his lot with the poor persecuted sect.

Without any intention on his part, and even against his own desire,
Calvin became the head of the evangelical party in Paris in less than a
year after his conversion. His depth of knowledge and earnestness of
speech were such that no one could hear him without being forcibly
impressed. For the present he remained in the Catholic Church, hoping
to reform it from within rather than from without. Schaff reminds us
that “all the Reformers were born, baptized, confirmed, and educated in
the historic Catholic Church, which cast them out; as the Apostles were
circumcised and trained in the Synagogue, which cast them out.” [211]

The zeal and earnestness of the new Reformer did not long go
unchallenged and it soon became necessary for Calvin to escape for his
life. The following account of his flight from Pads is given by the
Church historian, Philip Schaff: “Nicholas Cop, the son of a
distinguished royal physician (William Cop of Basel), and a friend of
Calvin was elected Rector of the University, Oct. 10, 1533, and
delivered the usual inaugural oration on All Saints’ Day, Nov. 1,
before a large assembly in the Church of the Mathurins. This oration,
at the request of the new Rector, had been prepared by Calvin. It was a
plea for a reformation on the basis of the New Testament, and a bold
attack on the scholastic theologians of the day, who were represented
as a set of sophists, ignorant of the Gospel …. The Sorbonne and the
Parliament regarded this academic oration as a manifesto of war upon
the Catholic Church, and condemned it to the flames. Cop was warned and
fled to his relatives in Basel. (Three hundred crowns were offered for
his capture, dead or alive.) Calvin, the real author of the mischief,
is said to have descended from a window by means of sheets, and escaped
from Paris in the garb of a vine-dresser with a hoe upon his shoulder.
His rooms were searched and his books and papers were seized by the
police …. Twenty-four innocent Protestants were burned alive in
public places of the city from Nov. 10, 1534, till May 5, 1535….Many
more were fined, imprisoned, and tortured, and a considerable number,
among them Calvin and Du Tillet, fled to Strassburg . . . For nearly
three years Calvin wandered as a fugitive evangelist under assumed
names from place to place in southern France, Switzerland, and Italy,
till he reached Geneva as his final destination.” [212]

Shortly after, if not before, the first edition of his Institutes
appeared, in March, 1536, Calvin and Louis Du Tillet crossed the Alps
into Italy where the literary and artistic Renaissance had its origin.
There he labored as an evangelist until the Inquisition began its work
of crushing out both the Renaissance and the Reformation as two kindred
serpents. He then bent his way, probably through Asota and over the
Great St. Bernard, to Switzerland. From Basel he made a last visit to
his native town of Noyon in order to make a final settlement of certain
family affairs. Then, with his younger brother Antoine and his sister
Marie, he left France forever, hoping to settle in Basel or Strassburg
and to lead there the quiet life of a scholar and author. Owing to the
fact that a state of war existed between Charles V. and Francis I., the
direct route through Lorraine was closed, so he made a circuitous
journey through Geneva.

Calvin intended to stop only a night in Geneva, but Providence had
decreed otherwise. His presence was made known to Farel, the Genevan
reformer, who instinctively felt that Calvin was the man to complete
and save the Reformation in Geneva. A fine description of this meeting
of Calvin and Farel is given by Schaff. Says he: “Farel at once called
on Calvin and held him fast, as by divine command. Calvin protested,
pleading his youth, his inexperience, his need of further study, his
natural timidity and bashfulness, which unfitted him for public action.
But all in vain. Farel, ‘who burned of a marvelous zeal to advance the
Gospel,’ threatened him with the curse of Almighty God if he preferred
his studies to the work of the Lord, and his own interest to the cause
of Christ. Calvin was terrified and shaken by these words of the
fearless evangelist, and felt ‘as if God from on high had stretched out
His hand.’ He submitted, and accepted the call to the ministry, as
teacher and pastor of the evangelical Church of Geneva.” [213]

Calvin was twenty-five years younger than Luther and Zwingli, and had
the great advantage of building on the foundation which they had laid.
The first ten years of Calvin’s public career were contemporary with
the last ten of Luther’s although the two never met personally. Calvin
was intimate with Melanchthon, however, and kept up a correspondence
with him until his death.

At the time Calvin came upon the scene it had not yet been determined
whether Luther was to be the hero of a great success or the victim of a
great failure. Luther had produced new ideas; Calvin’s work was to
construct them into a system, to preserve and develop what had been so
nobly begun. The Protestant movement lacked unity and was in danger of
being sunk in the quicksand of doctrinal dispute, but was saved from
that fate chiefly by the new :impulse which was given to it by the
Reformer in Geneva. The Catholic Church worked as one mighty unit and
was seeking to stamp out, by fair means or foul, the different
Protestant groups which had arisen in the North. Zwingli had seen this
danger and had tried to unite the Protestants against their common foe.
At Marburg, after pleadings and with tears in his eyes, he extended to
Luther the hand of fellowship regardless of their difference of opinion
as to the mode of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper; but Luther
refused it under the restraint of a narrow dogmatic conscience. Calvin
also, working in Switzerland with abundant opportunity to realize the
closeness of the Italian Church, saw the need for union and labored to
keep Protestantism together. To Cranmer, in England, he wrote, “I long
for one holy communion of the members of Christ. As for me, if I can be
of service, I would gladly cross ten seas in order to bring about this
unity.” His influence as exerted through his books, letters, and
students, was powerfully felt throughout the various countries, and the
statement that he saved the Protestant movement from destruction seems
to be no exaggeration.

For thirty years Calvin’s one absorbing interest was the advancement of
the Reformation. Reed says, “He toiled for it to the utmost limit of
his strength, fought for it with a courage that never quailed, suffered
for it with a fortitude that never wavered, and was ready at any moment
to die for it. He literally poured every drop of his life into it,
unhesitatingly, unsparingly. History will be searched in vain to find a
man who gave himself to one definite purpose with more unalterable
persistence, and with more lavish serf-abandon than Calvin gave himself
to the Reformation of the 16th century.” [214]

Probably no servant of Christ since the days of the Apostles has been
at the same time so much loved and hated, admired and abhorred, praised
and blamed, blessed and cursed, as the faithful, fearless, and immortal
Calvin. Living in a fiercely polemic age, and standing on the
watchtower of the reform movement in Western Europe, he was the
observed of all observers, and was exposed to attacks from every
quarter. Religious and sectarian passions are the deepest and
strongest, and in view of the good and the bad which is known to exist
in human nature in this world we need not be surprised at the reception
given Calvin’s teachings and writings.

When only twenty-six years of age Calvin published in Latin his
“Institutes of the Christian Religion.” The first edition contained in
brief outline all the essential elements of his system, and,
considering the youthfulness of the author, was a marvel of
intellectual precocity. It was later enlarged to five times the size of
the original and published in French, but never did he make any radical
departure from any of the doctrines set forth in the first edition.
Almost immediately the Institutes took first place as the best
exhibition and defense of the Protestant cause. Other writings bad
dealt with certain phases of the movement but here was one that treated
it as a unit. “The value of such a gift to the Reformation,” says Reed,
“cannot easily be exaggerated. Protestants and Romanists bore equal
testimony to its worth. The one hailed it as the greatest boon; the
other execrated it with the bitterest curses. It was burnt by order of
the Sorbonne at Paris and other places, and everywhere it called forth
the fiercest assaults of tongue and pen. Florimond de Raemond, a Roman
Catholic theologian, calls it ‘the Koran, the Talmud of heresy, the
foremost cause of our downfall.’ Kampachulte, another Roman Catholic,
testifies that ‘it was the common arsenal from which the opponents of
the Old Church borrowed their keenest weapons,’ and that ‘no writing of
the Reformation era was more feared by Roman Catholics, more zealously
fought against, and more bitterly pursued than Calvin’s Institutes.’
Its popularity was evidenced by the fact that edition followed edition
in quick succession; it was translated into most of the languages of
western Europe; it became the common text-book in the schools of the
Reformed Churches, and furnished the material out of which their creeds
were made.” [215]

“Of all the services which Calvin rendered to humanity,” says Dr.
Warfield,”–and they were neither few nor small–the greatest was
undoubtedly his gift to it afresh of this system of religious thought,
quickened into new life by the forces of his genius.” [216]

The Institutes were at once greeted by the Protestants with
enthusiastic praise as the clearest, strongest, most logical, and most
convincing defense of Christian doctrines since the days of the
Apostles. Schaff characterizes them well when he says that in them
“Calvin gave a systematic exposition of the Christian religion in
general, and a vindication of the evangelical faith in particular, with
the apologetic and practical aim of defending the Protestant believers
against calumny and persecution to which they were then exposed,
especially in France.” [217] The work is pervaded by an intense
earnestness and by fearless and severe argumentation which properly
subordinates reason and tradition to the supreme authority of the
Scriptures. It is admittedly the greatest book of the century, and
through it the Calvinistic principles were propagated on an immense
scale. Albrecht Ritschl calls it “the masterpiece of Protestant
theology.” Dr. Warfield tells us that “after three centuries and a half
it retains its unquestioned preeminence as the greatest and most
influential of all dogmatic treatises.” And again he says, “Even from
the point of mere literature, it holds a position so supreme in its
class that every one who would fain know the world’s best books, must
make himself familiar with it. What Thucydides is among Greek, or
Gibbon among eighteenth-century English historians, what Plato is among
philosophers, or the Iliad among epics, or Shakespeare among
dramatists, that Calvin’s ‘Institutes’ is among theological treatises.”
[218] It threw consternation into the Roman Church and was a powerful
unifying force among Protestants. It showed Calvin to be the ablest
controversialist in Protestantism and as the most formidable antagonist
with which the Romanists had to contend. In England the Institutes
enjoyed an almost unrivaled popularity, and was used as a text book in
the universities. It was soon translated into nine different European
languages; and it is simply due to a serious lack in the majority of
historical accounts that its importance has not been appreciated in
recent years.

A few weeks after the publication of the Institutes, Bucer, who ranks
third among the Reformers in Germany, wrote to Calvin: “It is evident
that the Lord had elected you as His organ for the bestowment of the
richest fulness of blessing to His Church.” Luther wrote no systematic
theology. Although his writings were voluminous, they were on scattered
subjects and many of them deal with the practical problems of his day.
It was thus left to Calvin to give a systematic exhibition of the
evangelical faith.

Calvin was, first of all, a theologian. He and Augustine easily rank as
the two outstanding systematic expounders of the Christian system since
St. Paul. Melanchthon, who was himself the prince of Lutheran
theologians, and who, after the death of Luther, was recognized as the
“Preceptor of Germany,” called Calvin preeminently “the theologian.”

If the language of the Institutes seems harsh in places we should
remember that this was the mark and weakness of theological controversy
in that age. The times in which Calvin lived were polemic. The
Protestants were engaged in a life and death struggle with Rome and the
provocations to impatience were numerous and grievous. Calvin, however,
was surpassed by Luther in the use of harsh language as will readily be
seen by an examination of the latter’s work, The Bondage of the Will,
which was a polemic written against the free-will ideas of Erasmus. And
furthermore, none of the Protestant writings of the period were so
harsh and abusive as were the Roman Catholic decrees of
excommunication, anathemas, etc., which were directed against the
Protestants.

In addition to the Institutes, Calvin wrote commentaries on nearly all
of the books of both the Old and New Testaments. These commentaries in
the English translation comprise fifty-five large volumes, and, taken
in connection with his other works, are nothing less than marvelous.
The quality of these writings was such that they soon took first place
among exegetical works on the Scriptures; and among all the older
commentators no one is more frequently quoted by the best modern
scholars than is Calvin. He was beyond all question the greatest
exegete of the Reformation period. As Luther was the prince of
translators, so Calvin was the prince of commentators.

Furthermore, in order to estimate the true value of Calvin’s
commentaries, it must be borne in mind that they were based on
principles of exegesis which were rare in his day. “He led the way,”
says R. C. Reed, “in discarding the custom of allegorizing the
Scriptures, a custom which had come down from the earliest centuries of
Christianity and which had been sanctioned by the greatest names of the
Church, from Origen to Luther, a custom which converts the Bible into a
nose of wax, and makes a lively fancy the prime qualification of an
exegete.” [219] Calvin adhered strictly to the spirit and letter of the
author and assumed that the writer had one definite thought which was
expressed in natural everyday language. He mercilessly exposed the
corrupt doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. His
writings inspired the friends of reform and furnished them with most of
their deadly ammunition. We can hardly overestimate the influence of
Calvin in furthering and safeguarding the Reformation.

Calvin was a master of patristic and scholastic learning. Having been
educated in the leading universities of his time, he possessed a
thorough knowledge of Latin and French, and a good knowledge of Greek
and Hebrew. His principal commentaries appeared in both French and
Latin versions and are works of great thoroughness. They are eminently
fair and frank, and show the author to have been possessed of a
singular balance and moderation in judgment. Calvin’s works had a
further effect in giving form and permanence to the then unstablized
French language in much the same way that Luther’s translation of the
Bible moulded the German language.

One other testimony which we should not omit is that of Arminius, the
originator of the rival system. Certainly here we have testimony from
an unbiased source. “Next to the study of the Scriptures,” he says, “I
exhort my pupils to pursue Calvin’s commentaries, which I extol in
loftier terms than Helmick himself (Helmick was a Dutch theologian);
for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of
Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued
than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so
that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, as rather
above all other men, what may be called an eminent gift of prophecy.”
[220]

The influence of Calvin was further spread through a voluminous
correspondence which he carried on with church leaders, princes, and
nobles throughout Protestant Christendom. More than 300 of these
letters are still preserved today, and as a rule they are not brief
friendship exchanges but lengthy and carefully prepared treatises
setting forth in a masterly way his views of perplexing ecclesiastical
and theological questions. In this manner also his influence in guiding
the Reformation throughout Europe was profound.

Due to an attempt of Calvin and Farel to enforce a too severe system of
discipline in Geneva, it became necessary for them to leave the city
temporarily. This was two years after Calvin’s coming. Calvin went to
Strassburg, in southwestern Germany, where he was warmly received by
Bucer and the leading men of the German Reformation. There he spent the
next three years in quiet and useful labors as professor, pastor, and
author, and came into contact with Lutheranism at first hand. He had a
great appreciation for the Luthern leaders and felt closely allied to
the Lutheran Church, although he was unfavorably impressed with the
lack of discipline and with the dependence of the clergy upon the
secular rulers. He later followed the progress of the Reformation in
Germany step by step with the warmest interest, as is shown in his
correspondence and various writings. During his absence from Geneva
affairs reached such a crisis that it seemed that the fruits of the
Reformation would be lost and he was urgently requested to return.
After repeated urgings from various sources he did so and took up the
work where he had left off before.

The city of Geneva, located on the shores of a lake which bears the
same name, was Calvin’s home. There, among the snow-capped Alps, he
spent most of his adult life, and from there the Reformed Church has
spread out through Europe and America. In the affairs of the Church, as
well as in the affairs of the State, the little country of Switzerland
has exerted an influence far out of proportion to its size.

Calvin’s influence in Geneva gives us a fair sample of the transforming
power of his system. “The Genevese,” says the eminent church historian,
Philip Schaff, “were a light-hearted, joyous people, fond of public
amusements, dancing, singing, masquerades, and revelries. Recklessness,
gambling, drunkenness, adultery, blasphemy, and all sorts of vice
abounded. Prostitution was sanctioned by the authority of the State,
and superintended by a woman called the Reine de bordel. The people
were ignorant. The priest had taken no pains to instruct them, and had
set them a bad example.” From a study of contemporary history we find
that shortly before Calvin went to Geneva the monks and even the bishop
were guilty of crimes which today are punishable with the death
penalty. The result of Calvin’s work in Geneva was that the city became
more famed for the quiet, orderly lives of its citizens than it had
previously been for their wickedness. John Knox, like thousands of
others who came to sit as admiring students at Calvin’s feet, found
there what he termed “the most perfect school of Christ that ever was
on the earth since the days of the Apostles.”

Through Calvin’s work Geneva became an asylum for the persecuted, and a
training school for the Reformed Faith. Refugees from all the countries
of Europe fled to this retreat, and from it they carried back with them
the clearly taught principles of the Reformation. It thus acted as a
center emanating spiritual power and educational forces which guided
and moulded the Reformation in the surrounding countries. Says
Bancroft, “More truly benevolent to the human race than Solon, more
self-denying than Lycurgus, the genius of Calvin infused enduring
elements into the institutions of Geneva and made it for the modern
world the impregnable fortress of popular liberty, the fertile
seed-plot of democracy.” [221]

Witness as to the effectiveness of the influences which emanated from
Geneva is found in one of the letters of the Roman Catholic Francis de
Sales to the duke of Savoy, urging the suppression of Geneva as the
capital of what the Romish Church calls heresy. “All the heretics,”
said he, “respect Geneva as the asylum of their religion…. There is
not a city in Europe which offers more facilities for the encouragement
of heresy, for it is the gate of France, of Italy, and of Germany, so
that one finds there people of all nations–Italians, French, Germans,
Poles, Spaniards, English, and of countries still more remote. Besides,
every one knows the great number of ministers bred there. Last year it
furnished twenty to France. Even England obtains ministers from Geneva.
What shall I say of its magnificent printing establishments, by means
of which the city floods the world with its wicked books, and even goes
the length of distributing them at the public expense? ….All the
enterprises undertaken against the Holy See and the Catholic princes
have their beginnings at Geneva. No city in Europe receives more
apostates of all grades, secular and regular. From thence I conclude
that Geneva being destroyed would naturally lead to the dissipation of
heresy.” [222]

Another testimony is that of one of the most bitter foes of
Protestantism, Philip II of Spain. He wrote to the king of France:
“This city is the source of all mischief for France, the most
formidable enemy of Rome. At any time, I am ready to assist with all
the power of my realm in its overthrow.” And when the Duke of Alva was
expected to pass near Geneva with his army, Pope Pius V asked him to
turn aside and “destroy that nest of devils and apostates.”

The famous academy of Geneva was opened in 1558. With Calvin there were
associated ten able and experienced professors who gave instruction in
grammar, logic, mathematics, physics, music, and the ancient languages.
The school was remarkably successful. During the first year more than
nine hundred students, mostly refugees from the various European
countries, were enrolled, and almost as many more attended his
theological lectures preparing themselves to be evangelists and
teachers in their native countries and to establish churches after the
model which they had seen in Geneva. For more than two hundred years it
remained the principal school of Reformed Theology and literary
culture.

Calvin was the first of the Reformers to demand complete separation
between Church and State, and thus he advanced another principle which
has been of inestimable value. The German Reformation was decided by
the will of the princes; the Swiss Reformation, by the will of the
people; although in each case there was a sympathy between the rulers
and the majority of the population. The Swiss Reformers, however,
living in the republic at Geneva, developed a free Church in a free
State, while Luther and Melanchthon, with their native reverence for
monarchial institutions and the German Empire, taught passive obedience
in politics and brought the Church under bondage to the civil
authority.

Calvin died in the year 1564, at the early age of fifty-five. Beza, his
close friend and successor, describes his death as having come quietly
as sleep, and then adds: “Thus withdrew into heaven, at the same time
with the setting sun, that most brilliant luminary, which was the lamp
of the Church. On the following night and day there was intense grief
and lamentation in the whole city; for the Republic had lost its wisest
citizen, the Church its faithful shepherd, and the Academy an
incomparable teacher.”

Schaff describes Calvin as “one of those characters that command
respect and admiration rather than affection, and forbid familiar
approach, but gain upon closer acquaintance. The better he is known,
the more he is admired and esteemed.” And concerning his death Schaff
says: “Calvin had expressly forbidden all pomp at his funeral and the
erection of any monument over his grave. He wished to be buried, like
Moses, out of reach of idolatry. This was consistent, with his
theology, which humbles man and exalts God.” [223] Even the spot of his
grave in the cemetery at Geneva is unknown. A plain stone, with the
initials “J. C.,” is pointed out to strangers as marking his
resting-place, but it is not known on what authority. He himself
requested that no monument should mark his grave. His real monument,
however, says S. L. Morris, is “every republican government on earth,
the public school system of all nations, and ‘The Reformed Churches
throughout the world holding the Presbyterian System.’”

We must now consider an event in the life of Calvin which to a certain
extent has cast a shadow over his fair name and which has exposed him
to the charge of intolerance and persecution. We refer to the death of
Servetus which occurred in Geneva during the period of Calvin’s work
there. That it was a mistake is admitted by all. History knows only one
spotless being–the Savior of sinners. All others have marks of
infirmity written which forbid idolatry.

Calvin has, however, often been criticized with undue severity as
though the responsibility rested upon him alone, when as a matter of
fact Servetus was given a court trial lasting over two months and was
sentenced by the full session of the civil Council, and that in
accordance with the laws which were then recognized throughout
Christendom. And, far from urging that the sentence be made more
severe, Calvin urged that the sword be substituted for the fire, but
was overruled. Calvin and the men of his time are not to be judged
strictly and solely by the advanced standards of our twentieth century,
but must to a certain extent be considered in the light of their own
sixteenth century. We have seen great developments in regard to civil
and religious toleration, prison reform, abolition of slavery and the
slave trade, feudalism, witch burning, improvement of the conditions of
the poor, etc., which are the late but genuine results of Christian
teachings. The error of those who advocated and practiced what would be
considered intolerance today, was the general error of the age. It
should not, in fairness, be permitted to give an unfavorable impression
of their character and motives, and much less should it be allowed to
prejudice us against their doctrines on other and more important
subjects.

The Protestants had just thrown off the yoke of Rome and in their
struggle to defend themselves they were often forced to fight
intolerance with intolerance. Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries public opinion in all European countries justified the right
and duty of civil governments to protect and support orthodoxy and to
punish heresy, holding that obstinate heretics and blasphemers should
be made harmless by death if necessary. Protestants differed from
Romanists mainly in their definition of heresy, and by greater
moderation in its punishment. Heresy was considered a sin against
society, and in some cases as worse than murder; for while murder only
destroyed the body, heresy destroyed the soul. Today we have swung to
the other extreme and public opinion manifests a latitudinarian
indifference toward truth or error. During the eighteenth century the
reign of intolerance was gradually undermined. Protestant England and
Holland took the lead in extending civil and religious liberty, and the
Constitution of the United States completed the theory by putting all
Christian denominations on a parity before the law and guaranteeing
them the full enjoyment of equal rights.

Calvin’s course in regard to Servetus was fully approved by all the
leading Reformers of the time. Melanchthon, the theological head of the
Lutheran Church, fully and repeatedly justified the course of Calvin
and the Council of Geneva, and even held them up as models for
imitation. Nearly a year after the death of Servetus he wrote to
Calvin: “I have read your book, in which you dearly refuted the horrid
blasphemies of Servetus …. To you the Church owes gratitude at the
present moment, and will owe it to the latest posterity. I perfectly
assent to your opinion. I affirm also that your. magistrates did right
in punishing, after regular trial, this blasphemous man.” Bucer, who
ranks third among the Reformers in Germany, Bullinger, the close friend
and worthy successor of Zwingli, as well as Farel and Beza in
Switzerland, supported Calvin. Luther and Zwingli were dead at this
time and it may be questioned whether they would have approved this
execution or not, although Luther and the theologians of Wittenberg had
approved of death sentences for some Anabaptists in Germany whom they
considered dangerous heretics,–adding that it was cruel to punish
them, but more cruel to allow them to damn the ministry of the Word and
destroy the kingdom of the world; and Zwingli had not objected to a
death sentence against a group of six Anabaptists in Switzerland.
Public opinion has undergone a great change in regard to this event,
and the execution of Servetus which was fully approved by the best men
in the sixteenth century is as fully condemned in the nineteenth
century.

As stated before, the Roman Catholic Church in this period was
desperately intolerant toward Protestants; and the Protestants, to a
certain extent and in self-defense, were forced to follow their
example. In regard to Catholic persecutions Philip Schaff writes as
follows: “We need only refer to crusades against the Albigenses and
Waldenses, which were sanctioned by Innocent III, one of the best and
greatest of popes; the tortures and autos-da-f� of the Spanish
Inquisition, which were celebrated with religious festivities; and
fifty thousand or more Protestants who were executed during the reign
of the Duke of Alva in the Netherlands (1567-1573); the several hundred
martyrs who were burned in Smithfield under the reign of bloody Mary;
and the repeated wholesale persecutions of the innocent Waldenses in
France and Piedmont, which cried to heaven for vengeance. It is vain to
shift the responsibility upon the civil government. Pope Gregory XIII
commemorated the massacre of St. Bartholomew not only by a Te Deum in
the churches of Rome, but more deliberately and permanently by a medal
which represents ‘The Slaughter of the Huguenots’ by an angel of
wrath.” [224]

And then Dr. Schaff continues: “The Roman Church has lost the power,
and to a large extent also the disposition, to persecute by fire and
sword. Some of her highest dignitaries frankly disown the principle of
persecution, especially in America, where they enjoy the full benefits
of religious freedom. But the Roman curia has never officially disowned
the theory on which the practice of persecution is based. On the
contrary, several popes since the Reformation have indorsed it ….
Pope Pius IX., in the Syllabus of 1864, expressly condemned, among the
errors of this age, the doctrine of religious toleration and liberty.
And this pope has been declared to be officially infallible by the
Vatican decree of 1870, which embraces all of his predecessors
(notwithstanding the stubborn case of Honorius I) and all his
successors in the chair of St. Peter,” (p. 669). And in another place
Dr. Schaff adds, “If Romanists condemned Calvin, they did it from
hatred of the man, and condemned him for following their own example
even in this particular case.”

Servetus was a Spaniard and opposed Christianity, whether in its Roman
Catholic or Protestant form. Schaff refers to him as “a restless
fanatic, a pantheistic pseudo-reformer, and the most audacious and even
blasphemous heretic of the sixteenth century.” [225] And in another
instance Schaff declares that Servetus was “proud, defiant,
quarrelsome, revengeful, irreverent in the use of language, deceitful,
and mendacious”; and adds that he abused popery and the Reformers alike
with unreasonable language. [226] Bullinger declares that if Satan
himself should come out of hell, he could use no more blasphemous
language against the Trinity than this Spaniard. The Roman Catholic
Bolsec, in his work on Calvin, calls Servetus “a very arrogant and
insolent man,” “a monstrous heretic,” who deserved to be exterminated.

Servetus had fled to Geneva from Vienne, France; and while the trial at
Geneva was in progress the Council received a message from the Catholic
judges in Vienne together with a copy of the sentence of death which
had been passed against him there, asking that he be sent back in order
that the sentence might be executed on him as it had already been
executed on his effigy and books. This request the Council refused but
promised to do full justice. Servetus himself preferred to be tried in
Geneva, since he could see only a burning funeral pyre for himself in
Vienne. The communication from Vienne probably made the Council in
Geneva more zealous for orthodoxy since they did not wish to be behind
the Roman Church in that respect.

Before going to Geneva Servetus had urged himself upon the attention of
Calvin through a long series of letters. For a time Calvin replied to
these in considerable detail, but finding no satisfactory results were
being accomplished he ceased. Servetus, however, continued writing and
his letters took on a more arrogant and even insulting tone. He
regarded Calvin as the pope of orthodox Protestantism, whom he was
determined to convert or overthrow. At the time Servetus came to Geneva
the Libertine party, which was in opposition to Calvin, was in control
of the city Council. Servetus apparently planned to join this party and
thus drive Calvin out. Calvin apparently sensed this danger and was in
no mood to permit Servetus to propagate his errors in Geneva. Hence he
considered it his duty to make so dangerous a man harmless, and
determined to bring him either to recantation or to deserved
punishment. Servetus was promptly arrested and brought to trial. Calvin
conducted the theological part of the trial and Servetus was convicted
of fundamental heresy, falsehood and blasphemy. During the long trial
Servetus became emboldened and attempted to overwhelm Calvin by pouring
upon him the coarsest kind of abuse. [227] The outcome of the trial was
left to the civil court, which pronounced the sentence of death by
fire. Calvin made an ineffectual plea that the sword be substituted for
the fire; hence the final responsibility for the burning rests with the
Council.

Dr. Emile Doumergue, the author of Jean Calvin, which is beyond
comparison the most exhaustive and authoritative work ever published on
Calvin, has the following to say about the death of Servetus: “Calvin
had Servetus arrested when he came to Geneva, and appeared as his
accuser. He wanted him to be condemned to death, but not to death by
burning. On August 20, 1553, Calvin wrote to Farel: ‘I hope that
Servetus will be condemned to death, but I desire that he should be
spared the cruelty of the punishment’–he means that of fire. Farel
replied to him on September 8th: ‘I do not greatly approve that
tenderness of heart,’ and he goes on to warn him to be careful that ‘in
wishing that the cruelty of the punishment of Servetus be mitigated,
thou art acting as a friend towards a man who is thy greatest enemy.
But I pray thee to conduct thyself in such a manner that, in future, no
one will have the boldness to publish such doctrines, and to give
trouble with impunity for so long a time as this man has done.’

“Calvin did not, on this account, modify his own opinion, but he could
not make it prevail. On October 26th he wrote again to Farel: ‘Tomorrow
Servetus will be led out to execution. We have done our best to change
the kind of death, but in vain. I shall tell thee when we meet why we
had no success.’ (Opera, XIV, pp. 590, 613-657).

“Thus, what Calvin is most of all reproached with–the burning of
Servetus–Calvin was quite opposed to. He is not responsible for it. He
did what he could to save Servetus from mounting the pyre. But, what
reprimands, more or less eloquent, has this pyre with its flames and
smoke given rise to, made room for! The fact is that without the pyre
the death of Servetus would have passed almost unnoticed.”

Doumergue goes on to tell us that the death of Servetus was “the error
of the time, an error for which Calvin was not particularly
responsible. The sentence of condemnation to death was pronounced only
after consultation with the Swiss Churches, several of which were far
from being on good terms with Calvin (but all of which gave their
consent) …. Besides, the judgment was pronounced by a Council in
which the inveterate enemies of Calvin, the free thinkers, were in the
majority.” [228]

That Calvin himself rejected the responsibility is clear from his later
writings. “From the time that Servetus was convicted of his heresy,”
said he, “I have not uttered a word about his punishment, as all honest
men will bear witness.” [229] And in one of his later replies to an
attack which had been made upon him, he says: “For what particular act
of mine you accuse me of cruelty I am anxious to know. I myself know
not that act, unless it be with reference to the death of your great
master, Servetus. But that I myself earnestly entreated that he might
not be put to death his judges themselves are witnesses, in the number
of whom at that time two were his staunch favorites and defenders.”
[230]

Before the arrest of Servetus and during the earlier stages of the
trial Calvin advocated the death penalty, basing his argument mainly on
the Mosaic law, which was, “He that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, he
shall surely be put to death,” Lev. 24:16–a law which Calvin
considered as binding as the decalogue and applicable to heresy as
well. Yet he left the passing of sentence wholly to the civil council.
tie considered Servetus the greatest enemy of the Reformation and
honestly believed it to be the right and duty of the State to punish
those who offended against the Church. He also felt himself
providentially called to purify the Church of all corruptions, and to
his dying day he never changed his views nor regretted his conduct
toward Servetus.

Dr. Abraham Kuyper, the statesman-theologian from Holland, in speaking
to an American audience not many years ago expressed some thoughts in
this connection which are worth repeating. Said he: “The duty of the
government to extirpate every form of false religion and idolatry was
not a find of Calvinism, but dates from Constantine the Great and was
the reaction against the horrible persecutions which his pagan
predecessors on the Imperial throne had inflicted upon the sect of the
Nazarene. Since that day this system had been defended by all Romish
theologians and applied by all Christian princes. In the time of Luther
and Calvin, it was a universal conviction that that system was the true
one. Every famous theologian of the period, Melanchton first of all,
approved of the death by fire of Servetus; and the scaffold, which was
erected by the Lutherans, at Leipzig for Kreel, the thorough Calvinist,
was infinitely more reprehensible when looked at from a Protestant
standpoint.

“But whilst the Calvinists, in the age of the Reformation, yielded up
themselves as martyrs, by tens of thousands, to the scaffold and the
stake (those of the Lutherans and Roman Catholics being hardly worth
counting), history has been guilty of the great and far-reaching
unfairness of ever casting in their teeth this one execution by fire of
Servetus as a crimen nefandum.

“Notwithstanding all this I not only deplore that one stake, but I
unconditionally disapprove of it; yet not as if it were the expression
of a special characteristic of Calvinism, but on the contrary as the
fatal after-effect of a system, grey with age, which Calvinism found in
existence, under which it had grown up, and from which it had not yet
been able entirely to liberate itself.” [231]

Hence when we view this affair in the light of the sixteenth century
and consider these different aspects of the case,–namely, the approval
of the other reformers, a public opinion which abhorred toleration as
involving indifference to truth and which justified the death penalty
for obstinate heresy and blasphemy, the sentence also passed on
Servetus by the Roman Catholic authorities, the character of Servetus
and his attitude toward Calvin, his going to Geneva for the purpose of
causing trouble, the passing of sentence by a civil court not under
Calvin’s control, and Calvin’s appeal for a lighter form of
punishment,–we come to the conclusion that Calvin, in so far as he is
chargeable with the affair, acted from a strict sense of duty, and that
his responsibility is much less than has been commonly assumed.
Furthermore, we are glad to say that while there was only one instance
of this kind there was only one with which Calvin was in any way
connected.

11. CONCLUSION

We have now examined the Calvinistic system in considerable detail, and
have seen its influence in the Church, in the State, in society, and in
education. We have also considered the objections which are commonly
brought against it, and have considered the practical importance of the
system. It now remains for us to make a few general observations in
regard to the system as a whole.

A sure test of the character of individuals or of systems is found in
Christ’s own words: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” By that test
Calvinists and Calvinism will gladly be judged. The lives and the
influences of those who have held the Reformed Faith is one of the best
and most conclusive arguments in its favor. Smith refers to “that
divinely vital and exuberant Calvinism, the creator of the modern
world, the mother of heroes, saints and martyrs in number without
number, which history, judging the tree by its fruits, crowns as the
greatest creed of Christendom.” [232] The impartial verdict of history
is that as a character builder and as a proclaimer of liberty to men
and nations Calvinism stands supreme among all the religious systems of
the world. In calling the roll of the great men of our own country the
number of Presbyterian presidents, legislators, jurists, authors,
editors, teachers and business men is vastly disproportionate to the
membership of the Church. Every impartial historian will admit that it
was the Protestant revolt against Rome which gave the modern world its
first taste of genuine religious and civil liberty, and that the
nations which have achieved and enjoyed the greatest freedom have been
those which were most fully brought under the influence of Calvinism.
Furthermore that great life-giving stream of religious and civil
liberty has been made by Calvinism to flow over all the broad plains of
modern history. When we compare countries such as England, Scotland and
America, with countries such as France, Spain and Italy, which never
came under the influences of Calvinism, we readily see what the
practical results are. The economic and moral depression in Roman
Catholic countries has brought about such a decrease even in the birth
rate that the population in those countries hah become almost
stationary, while the population in these other countries has steadily
increased.

A brief examination of Church history, or of the historic creeds of
Protestantism, readily shows that the doctrines which today are known
as Calvinism were the ones which brought about the Reformation and
preserved its benefits. He who is most familiar with the history of
Europe and America will readily agree with the startling statement of
Dr. Cunningham that, “next to Paul, John Calvin has done most for the
world.” And Dr. Smith has well said: “Surely it should stop the mouths
of the detractors of Calvinism to remember that from men of that creed
we inherit, as the fruits of their blood and toil, their prayers and
teachings, our civil liberty, our Protestant faith, our Christian
homes. The thoughtful reader, noting that these three blessings lie at
the root of all that is best and greatest in the modern world, may be
startled at the implied claim that our present Christian civilization
is but the fruitage of Calvinism.” [233]

We do but repeat the very clear testimony of history when we say that
Calvinism has been the creed of saints and heroes. “Whatever the
cause,” says Froude, “the Calvinists were the only fighting
Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for
the Reformation, and but for them the Reformation would have been
lost.” During those centuries in which spiritual tyranny was numbering
its victims by the thousands; when in England, Scotland, Holland and
Switzerland, Protestantism had to maintain itself with the sword,
Calvinism proved itself the only system able to cope with and destroy
the great powers of the Romish Church. Its unequalled array of martyrs
is one of its crowns of glory. In the address of the Methodist
Conference to the Presbyterian Alliance of 1896 it was graciously said:
“Your Church has furnished the memorable and inspiring spectacle, not
simply of a solitary heroic soul here and there, but of generations of
faithful souls ready for the sake of Christ and His truth to go
cheerfully to prison and to death. This rare honor you rightly esteem
as the most precious part of your priceless heritage.” “There is no
other system of religion in the world,” says McFetridge, which has such
a glorious array of martyrs to the faith. “Almost every man and woman
who walked to the flames rather than deny the faith or leave a stain on
conscience was the devout follower, not only, and first of all, of the
Son of God, but also of that minister of God who made Geneva the light
of Europe, John Calvin.” [234] To the Divine vitality and fruitfulness
of this system the modern world owes a debt of gratitude which in
recent years it is slowly beginning to recognize but can never pay.

We have said that Calvinistic theology develops a liberty loving
people. Where it flourishes despotism cannot abide. As might have been
expected, it early gave rise to a revolutionary form of Church
government, in which the people of the Church were to be governed and
ministered to, not by the appointees of any one man or set of men
placed over them, but by pastors and officers elected by themselves.
Religion was then with the people, not over them. Testimony from a
remarkable source as to the efficiency of this government is that of
the distinguished Roman Catholic, Archbishop Hughes of New York:
“Though it is my privilege to regard the authority exercised by the
General Assembly as usurpation, still I must say, with every man
acquainted with the mode in which it is organized, that for the purpose
of popular and political government its structure is little inferior to
that of Congress itself. It acts on the principle of a radiating
center, and is without an equal or a rival among the other
denominations of the country.” [235]

From freedom and responsibility in the Church it was only a step to
freedom and responsibility in the State; and historically the cause of
freedom has found no braver nor more resolute champions than the
followers of Calvin.

“Calvinism,” says Warburton, “is no dreamy, theoretical creed. It does
not,–despite all the assertions of its adversaries,–encourage a man
to fold his arms in a spirit of fatalistic indifference, and ignore the
needs of those around him, together with the crying evils which lie,
like putrifying sores, upon the open face of society.” [236] Wherever
it has gone marvelous moral transformations have followed in its wake.
For purity of life, for temperance, industry, and charity, the
Calvinists have stood without superiors.

James Anthony Froude has been recognized as one of England’s most able
historians and men of letters. For a number of years he was professor
of History at Oxford, England’s greatest university. While he accepted
another system for himself, and while his writings are such that he is
often spoken of as an opponent of Calvinism, he was free from
prejudice, and the ignorant attacks upon Calvinism which have been so
common in recent years aroused in him the learned scholar’s just
impatience.

“I am going to ask you,” says Froude, “to consider how it came to pass
that if Calvinism is indeed the hard and unreasonable creed which
modern enlightenment declares it to be, it has possessed such singular
attractions in past times for some of the greatest men that ever lived;
and how–being as we are told, fatal to morality, because it denies
free will–the first symptom of its operation, wherever it established
itself, was to obliterate the distinction between sins and crimes, and
to make the moral law the rule of life for States as well as persons. I
shall ask you, again, why, if it be a creed of intellectual servitude,
it was able to inspire and sustain the bravest efforts ever made by man
to break the yoke of unjust authority. When all else has failed,–when
patriotism has covered its face and human courage has broken
down,–when intellect has yielded, as Gibbon says, ‘with a smile or a
sigh,’ content to philosophize in the closet, and abroad worship with
the vulgar,–when emotion, and sentiment, and tender imaginative piety
have become the handmaids of superstition, and have dreamt themselves
into forgetfulness that there is any difference between lies and
truth,–the slavish form of belief called Calvinism, in one or other of
its many forms, has borne ever an inflexible front to illusion and
mendacity, and has preferred rather to be ground to powder like flint
than to bend before violence or melt under enervating temptation.”
[237]

To illustrate this Froude mentions William the Silent, Luther, Calvin,
Knox, Coligny, Cromwell, Milton, and Bunyan, and says of them: “These
men are possessed of all the qualities which give nobility and grandeur
to human nature,–men whose life was as upright as their intellect was
commanding and their public aims untainted with selfishness;
unalterably just where duty required them to be stern, but with the
tenderness of a woman in their hearts; frank, true, cheerful, humorous,
as unlike sour fanatics as it is possible to imagine anyone, and able
in some way to sound the key-note to which every brave and faithful
heart in Europe instinctively vibrated.” [238]

We shall now turn our attention to Calvinism as an evangelizing force.
A very practical test for any system of religious doctrine is, “Has it,
in comparison with other systems, proved itself a success in the
evangelization of the world?” To save sinners and convert them to
practical godliness is the chief purpose of the Church in this world;
and the system which will not measure up to this test must be set
aside, no matter how popular it may be in other respects.

The first great Christian revival, in which three thousand people were
converted, occurred under the preaching of Peter in Jerusalem, who
employed such language as this: “Him being delivered up by the
determinate council and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hands of
lawless men did crucify and slay,” Acts 2:23. And the company of
disciples, when in earnest prayer shortly afterward, spoke in these
words: “For of a truth in this city against thy holy servant Jesus,
whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the
Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do
whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel foreordained to come to pass,” Acts
4:27, 28. That is Calvinism rigid enough.

The next great revival in the Church, which occurred in the fourth
century through the influence of Augustine, was based on these
doctrines, as is readily seen by anyone who reads the literature on
that period. The Reformation, which is admitted by all to have been
incomparably the greatest revival of true religion since New Testament
times, occurred under the soundly predestinarian preaching of Luther,
Zwingli, and Calvin. To Calvin and Admiral Coligny belongs the credit
of having inspired the first Protestant foreign missionary enterprise,
the expedition to Brazil in 1555. True, the venture proved
unsuccessful, and the religious wars in Europe prevented the renewal of
the enterprise for a considerable period.

McFetridge has given us some interesting and comparatively unknown
facts about the rise of the Methodist Church. Says he: “We speak of the
Methodist Church beginning in a revival. And so it did. But the first
and chief actor in that revival was not Wesley, but Whitefield (an
uncompromising Calvinist). Though a younger man than Wesley, it was he
who first went forth preaching in the fields and gathering multitudes
of followers, and raising money and building chapels. It was Whitefield
who invoked the two Wesleys to his aid. And he had to employ much
argument and persuasion to overcome their prejudices against the
movement. Whitefield began the great work at Bristol and Kingswood, and
had found thousands flocking to his side, ready to be organized into
churches, when he appealed to Wesley for assistance. Wesley, with all
his zeal, had been quite a High-Churchman in many of his views. He
believed in immersing even the infants, and demanded that dissenters
should be rebaptized before being taken into the Church. He could not
think of preaching in any place but in a church. ‘He should have
thought,’ as he said, ‘the saving of souls almost a sin if it had not
been done in a church.’ Hence when Whitefield called on John Wesley to
engage with him in the popular movement, he shrank back. Finally, he
yielded to Whitefield’s persuasions, but, he allowed himself to be
governed in the decision by what many would rate as a superstition. He
and Charles first opened their Bibles at random to see if their eyes
should fall on a text which might decide them. But the texts were all
foreign to the subject. Then he had recourse to sortilege, and cast
lots to decide the matter. The lot drawn was the one marked for him to
consent, and so he consented. Thus he was led to undertake the work
with which his name has been so intimately and honorably associated
ever since.

“So largely was the Methodist movement owing to Whitefield that he was
called ‘the Calvinistic establisher of Methodism,’ and to the end of
his life he remained the representative of it in the eyes of the
learned world. Walpole, in his Letters, speaks only once of Wesley in
connection with the rise of Methodism, while he frequently speaks of
Whitefield in connection with it. Mant, in his course of lectures
against Methodism, speaks of it as an entirely Calvinistic affair.
Neither the mechanism nor the force which gave rise to it originated
with Wesley. Field-preaching, which gave the whole movement its
aggressive character, and fitted and enabled it to cope with the
powerful agencies which were armed against it, was begun by Whitefield,
whilst ‘Wesley was dragged into it reluctantly.’ In the polite language
of the day ‘Calvinism’ and ‘Methodism’ were synonymous terms, and the
Methodists were called ‘another sect of Presbyterians.’ ….

“It was Calvinism, and not Arminianism, which originated (so far as any
system of doctrine originated) the great religious movement in which
the Methodist Church was born.

“While, therefore, Wesley is to be honored for his work in behalf of
that Church, we should not fail to remember the great Calvinist, George
Whitefield, who gave that Church her first beginnings and her most
distinctive character. Had he lived longer, and not shrunk from the
thought of being the founder of a Church, far different would have been
the results of his labors. As it was, he gathered congregations for
others to form into Churches, and built chapels for others to preach
in.” [239]

Furthermore, when we come to a study of foreign missions we find that
this system of belief has been the most important agency in carrying
the Gospel to the heathen nations. St. Paul, whom the more liberal
opponents of Calvinism admit to have been responsible for the
Calvinistic cast of the theological thought of the Church, was the
greatest and most influential of missionaries. If we call the roll of
the heroes of Protestant Missions we find that almost without exception
they have been disciples of Calvin. We find Carey and Martyn in India,
Linvingstone and Moffat in Africa, Morrison in China, Paton in the
South Seas, and a great host of others. These men professed and
possessed a Calvinism which was not static but dynamic; it was not
their creed only, but their conduct.

And in regard to foreign missions, Dr. F. W. Loetscher has said:
“Though like all our sister Churches we have reason, in view of our
unprecedented resources and the appalling needs of heathen lands, to
lament that we have not accomplished more, we may at least thank God
that our venerated fathers made so good a beginning in establishing
missions all over the world; that the Calvinistic Churches today
surpass all others in their gifts to this cause; and in particular that
our own denomination has the unique honor and privilege of discharging
her far-reaching responsibities by actually confronting every one of
the great non-Christian religions, and preaching the gospel on more
continents, and among more nations, peoples, and tongues, than any
other evangelical Church in the world.” [240]

Although to some it may sound like an unwarranted exaggeration, we have
no hesitation in saying that through the centuries Calvinism,
fearlessly and ringingly polemic in its insistence upon, and defense
of, sound doctrine, has been the real strength of the Christian Church.
The traditionally high standards of the Calvinistic Churches in regard
to ministerial training and culture have borne a great harvest in
bringing multitudes to the feet of Jesus, not in temporary excitement,
but in perpetual covenant. Judged by its fruits Calvinism has proven
itself incomparably the greatest evangelizing force in the world.

The enemies of Calvinism are not able honestly to confront the
testimony of history. Certainly a glorious record belongs to this
system in the history of modern civilization. None more noble can be
found anywhere. “It has ever been a mystery to the so-called liberals,”
says Henry Ward Beecher, “that the Calvinists, with what they have
considered their harshly despotic and rigid views and doctrines, should
always have been the staunchest and bravest defenders of freedom. The
working for liberty of these severe principles in the minds of those
that adopted them has been a puzzle. But the truth lies here: Calvinism
has done what no other religion has ever been able to do. It presents
the highest human ideal to the world, and sweeps the whole road to
destruction with the most appalling battery that can be imagined.

“It intensifies, beyond all example, the individuality of man, and
shows in a clear and overpowering light his responsibility to God and
his relations to eternity. It points out man as entering life under the
weight of a tremendous responsibility, having on his march toward the
grave, this one sole solace–of securing heaven and of escaping hell.

“Thus the Calvinist sees man pressed, burdened, urged on, by the most
mighty influencing forces. He is on the march for eternity, and is soon
to stand crowned in heaven or to lie sweltering in hell, thus to
continue for ever and ever. Who shall dare to fetter such a being? Get
out of his way! Hinder him not, or do it at the peril of your own soul.
Leave him free to find his way to God. Meddle not with him or with his
rights. Let him work out his own salvation as he can. No hand must be
laid crushingly upon a creature who is on such a race as this–a race
whose end is to be eternal glory or unutterable woe for ever and ever.”
[241]

“This tree,” to adopt the eloquent paragraph of another, “may have, to
prejudiced eyes, a rough bark, a gnarled stem, and boughs twisted often
into knotted shapes of ungraceful strength. But, remember, it is not a
willow-wand of yesterday. These boughs have wrestled with the storms of
a thousand years; this stem has been wreathed with the red lightning
and scarred by the thunderbolt; and all over its rough rind are the
marks of the battle-axe and the bullet. This old oak has not the pliant
grace and silky softness of a greenhouse plant, but it has a majesty
above grace, and a grandeur beyond beauty. Its roots may be strangely
contorted, but some of them are rich with the blood of glorious
battlefields, some of them are clasped around the stakes of martyrs;
some of them hidden in solitary cells and lonely libraries, where deep
thinkers have mused and prayed, as in some apocalyptic Patmos; and its
great tap-root runs back, until it twines in living and loving embrace
around the cross of Calvary. Its boughs may be gnarled, but they hang
clad with all that is richest and strongest in the civilization and
Christianity of human history.” [242]

This is no vain and empty eulogy of Calvinism. With the above facts and
observations every enlightened and impartial reader of history will
agree. Furthermore, the author would say of this book what Dr. E. W.
Smith in his book, “The Creed of Presbyterians,” said at the close of
the chapter on, “The Creed Tested By Its Fruits,”–namely that these
facts and observations are “set forth, not to stimulate denominational
vanity, but to fill us with gratitude to God for that past history and
that present eminence which should be to every one of us

‘A vantage-ground for nobleness’;

and above all to kindle in our hearts a holy enthusiasm for that Divine
system of truth, which, under God, has been the foremost factor in the
making of America and the modern world.”

In conclusion we would say that in this book the reader has found some
very old-fashioned divinity–divinity as old as the Bible, as old and
older than the world itself, since this plan of redemption was hidden
in the eternal counsels of God. No attempt has been made to cloak the
fact that the doctrines advocated and defended in these pages are
really wonderful and startling. They are enough to electrify the sleepy
sinner who has taken it for granted all his life long that he can
square matters with God any time he pleases, and they are sufficient to
horrify the sleepy “saint” who has been deluding himself in the
deadening repose of a carnal religion. But why should they not cause
astonishment? Does not nature teem with wonders? Why should not
revelation? One needs to read but little to become aware that Science
brings to light many astonishing truths which an uneducated man finds
it hard, if not impossible, to believe; and why should it not be so
with the truths of Revelation and the spiritually uneducated? If the
Gospel does not startle and terrify and amaze a man when presented to
him, it is not the true Gospel. But who was ever amazed at Arminianism
with its doctrine that every man carves out his own destiny? It will
not suffice merely to ignore or ridicule these doctrines as many are
inclined to do. The question is, Are these doctrines true? If they are
true, why ridicule them? If they are not true, disprove them. We close
with the statement that this great system of religious thought which
bears Calvin’s name is nothing more or less than the hope of the world.
__________________________________________________________________

[167] Calvinism, p. 42.

[168] Calvinism, p. 44.

[169] History of the Reformation, p. 224.

[170] God Sovereign and Man Free, p. 14.

[171] The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 72.

[172] Macaulay, History of England, I., p. 119.

[173] The Beginnings of New England, pp. 37, 51.

[174] Calvinism in History, p. 124.

[175] The Creed of Presbyterians, pp. 98, 99.

[176] The Swiss Reformation, II., p. 818.

[177] Hist. Eng. X. 437.

[178] Smith, The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 83.

[179] Eng. Hist. Eighteenth Century, I., pp. 264, 265.

[180] Calvinism, pp. 84, 92.

[181] Calvinism in History, p. 144.

[182] Rise of the Dutch Republic, I., p. 114.

[183] Lectures on Calvinism, p. 44.

[184] Hist. U. S., I., p. 463.

[185] Presbyterians and the Revolution, p. 49.

[186] Scotch and Irish Seeds in American Soil, p. 334.

[187] Creeds of Christendom, p. 219.

[188] Harper’s Monthly, June and July, 1872.

[189] The United Netherlands, III., p. 121.

[190] The United Netherlands, IV., pp. 548, 547.

[191] English Literature, II., p. 472.

[192] Address on, “The Westminster Standards and the Formation of the
American Republic.

[193] Hist. U. S., X., p. 77.

[194] Calvinism in History, pp. 85-88.

[195] The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 142.

[196] Id. p. 119.

[197] Reformation in the Time of Calvin, I., p. 5.

[198] The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 132.

[199] Calvinism in History, p. 74.

[200] Beginnings of New England, p. 58.

[201] Democracy, I., p. 384.

[202] The Beginnings of New England, p. 59.

[203] Lectures on the History of France, p. 415.

[204] The Fundamental Principles of Calvinism, H. H. Meeter, p. 92.

[205] What Calvinism Has Done for America, p. 6.

[206] Calvinism in History, p. 21.

[207] Miscellanies, p. 406.

[208] Hist. Of U. S., II., p. 463.

[209] The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 148.

[210] The Fundamental Principles of Calvinism, p. 96-99.

[211] The Swiss Reformation, p. 312.

[212] Schaff, The Swiss Reformation, p. 322.

[213] The Swiss Reformation, p. 348.

[214] Calvin Memorial Addresses, p. 34.

[215] Calvin Memorial Addresses, p. 20.

[216] Article, The Theology of Calvin, p. 1.

[217] The Swiss Reformation, p. 330.

[218] Calvin and Calvinism, pp. 8, 374.

[219] Calvin Memorial Addresses, p. 22.

[220] Quoted by James Orr, Calvin Memorial Addresses, p. 92.

[221] Miscellanies, p. 406.

[222] Vie de ste. Francois de Sales, par son neveu, p. 20.

[223] The Swiss Reformation, p. 826.

[224] History of the Swiss Reformation, II, p. 698.

[225] The Creeds of Christendom, I., p. 464.

[226] The Swiss Reformation, II., p. 787.

[227] See Schaff, The Swiss Reformation, II., p. 778.

[228] Doumergue, Article, What Ought to be Known About Calvin, in the
Evangelical Quarterly, Jan. 1929.

[229] Opera, VIII., p. 461.

[230] Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 346.

[231] Lectures on Calvinism, p. 129.

[232] The Creed of Presbyterians, p. vii.

[233] The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 74.

[234] Calvinism in History, p. 113.

[235] Presbyterians and the Revolution, p. 140.

[236] Calvinism, p. 78.

[237] Calvinism, p. 7.

[238] Calvinism, p. 8.

[239] Calvinism in History, pp. 151-153.

[240] Address before the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church,
U.S.A., 1929.

[241] Plymouth Pulpit, article, Calvinism.

[242] Power and Claims of a Calvinistic Literature, p. 35, quoted from
Smith, The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 105.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Indexes
__________________________________________________________________

Index of Scripture References

Genesis

[1]2:17 [2]8:21 [3]13:16 [4]18:14 [5]22:17 [6]24 [7]31:9
[8]37:28 [9]41 [10]41:32 [11]41:57 [12]42:21 [13]45:5
[14]45:5 [15]45:8 [16]45:8 [17]45:8 [18]50:20

Exodus

[19]2 [20]3:18-19 [21]4:21 [22]8:15 [23]9:16 [24]9:16
[25]9:16 [26]9:16 [27]9:26 [28]10:1-2 [29]11:7 [30]11:9
[31]12:29 [32]12:36 [33]12:36 [34]14:17 [35]14:17 [36]17:14
[37]34:6-7 [38]34:24

Leviticus

[39]24:16

Numbers

[40]14:21 [41]16:31-33 [42]23:19 [43]23:19 [44]24:10

Deuteronomy

[45]2:30 [46]7:6 [47]7:7-8 [48]10:15 [49]20:16 [50]23:3

Joshua

[51]7:16 [52]11:20 [53]11:20 [54]21:44

Judges

[55]6:1 [56]9:23 [57]9:53

1 Samuel

[58]2:25 [59]2:25 [60]2:25 [61]3:18 [62]9:15-16 [63]10:19
[64]15:29 [65]16:14

2 Samuel

[66]7:27-29 [67]12:11 [68]12:14 [69]16:10-11 [70]16:10-11
[71]16:11 [72]17:14 [73]24:1 [74]24:1 [75]24:10

1 Kings

[76]12:11 [77]12:15 [78]12:15 [79]19:18 [80]22:20-23
[81]22:28 [82]22:34 [83]22:34

2 Kings

[84]19:35 [85]22:20

1 Chronicles

[86]5:22 [87]10 [88]10:14 [89]16:31 [90]21:1

Ezra

[91]1:1-3 [92]6:22 [93]6:22 [94]7:6 [95]7:6 [96]8:31

Nehemiah

[97]4:15 [98]9:6 [99]13:2

Job

[100]1:21 [101]5:6 [102]14:4 [103]14:4 [104]14:5
[105]15:14-16 [106]23:13-14 [107]36:32 [108]36:32 [109]42:2

Psalms

[110]1:3 [111]5:5 [112]8:1 [113]8:3-4 [114]19:1 [115]22:6-8
[116]22:18 [117]22:18 [118]29:10 [119]33:10 [120]33:11
[121]34:7 [122]34:7 [123]34:19-20 [124]34:20 [125]34:20
[126]37:23 [127]47:7 [128]48:14 [129]51:5 [130]51:5
[131]51:5 [132]58:3 [133]65:4 [134]69:21 [135]69:21
[136]76:10 [137]90:4 [138]92:12 [139]104:5 [140]104:21
[141]104:25 [142]104:27 [143]105:6 [144]105:25 [145]115:3
[146]118:6 [147]125:1 [148]135:6 [149]138:8 [150]139:6
[151]139:14-16 [152]139:16 [153]139:16 [154]147:20 [155]147:20

Proverbs

[156]4 [157]16:4 [158]16:4 [159]16:9 [160]16:9 [161]16:33
[162]21:1 [163]21:1 [164]21:4 [165]30:12

Ecclesiastes

[166]7:14 [167]11

Song of Solomon

[168]5:3

Isaiah

[169]6:3 [170]6:9-10 [171]10:5-15 [172]10:5-15 [173]11:12
[174]14:24 [175]14:24 [176]14:27 [177]37:26 [178]40:12
[179]40:15 [180]44:28 [181]45:7 [182]46 [183]46:9-10
[184]46:9-11 [185]46:10 [186]46:10-11 [187]47:7 [188]49:6
[189]53 [190]53:11-12 [191]53:12 [192]54:10 [193]54:16
[194]55:1 [195]55:11 [196]57:15 [197]63:17 [198]64:8

Jeremiah

[199]1:5 [200]10:23 [201]13:23 [202]13:23 [203]15:2
[204]17:9 [205]27:7 [206]31:3 [207]31:18-19 [208]32:17
[209]32:40 [210]33:3

Lamentations

[211]3:33-38

Ezekiel

[212]3:4-11 [213]11:19 [214]11:19-20 [215]33:8 [216]33:11
[217]36:26 [218]36:27

Daniel

[219]2:21 [220]2:28 [221]2:44 [222]3:17 [223]4:17 [224]4:35
[225]4:35 [226]4:35 [227]6:14 [228]6:22 [229]9:2-3

Amos

[230]3:2 [231]3:2 [232]3:2 [233]3:5-6 [234]3:6 [235]3:6
[236]3:6 [237]3:7 [238]4:7

Jonah

[239]1:7 [240]1:7

Micah

[241]5:2

Nahum

[242]1:3

Habakkuk

[243]1:6 [244]2:3

Zechariah

[245]9:10 [246]11:12-13 [247]12:10 [248]12:10

Malachi

[249]1:11 [250]3:6

Matthew

[251]2:5-6 [252]5:3 [253]5:10-12 [254]5:11-12 [255]5:45
[256]5:48 [257]5:48 [258]6:26 [259]7:6 [260]7:14
[261]7:16-20 [262]7:22-23 [263]7:23 [264]7:24 [265]10:5-6
[266]10:29 [267]11:25 [268]11:25 [269]11:25 [270]11:26
[271]11:27 [272]12:38 [273]13:10-15 [274]13:11 [275]13:14-15
[276]13:24 [277]13:33 [278]13:38 [279]19:26 [280]20:13-15
[281]20:18-19 [282]20:21 [283]20:28 [284]21:42 [285]21:42
[286]23:33-37 [287]24:14 [288]24:24 [289]24:24 [290]24:24
[291]24:31 [292]24:36 [293]25 [294]25:34 [295]25:41
[296]25:41 [297]26:31 [298]26:39 [299]26:53 [300]27:9-10
[301]27:34 [302]27:38 [303]27:39 [304]28:18

Mark

[305]1:5 [306]4:12 [307]6:20 [308]7:6-7 [309]8:38
[310]10:27 [311]13:20 [312]13:20 [313]14:30 [314]14:30
[315]16:15

Luke

[316]1:15 [317]2:1 [318]2:1-7 [319]2:3 [320]2:13 [321]2:34
[322]7:41-50 [323]8:10 [324]9:31 [325]10:12-14 [326]10:20
[327]10:20 [328]10:20 [329]10:21 [330]10:27 [331]11:21-22
[332]12:47-48 [333]13:24 [334]17:10 [335]20:35 [336]20:46
[337]21:17 [338]21:24 [339]22:22 [340]22:22

John

[341]1:7 [342]1:29 [343]1:31 [344]3 [345]3:3 [346]3:3
[347]3:3 [348]3:16 [349]3:16-17 [350]3:19 [351]3:36
[352]3:36 [353]3:36 [354]4:9 [355]4:14 [356]4:42 [357]5:21
[358]5:21 [359]5:24 [360]5:24 [361]5:40 [362]5:40 [363]6:33
[364]6:37 [365]6:47 [366]6:51 [367]6:51 [368]6:53 [369]6:53
[370]6:64 [371]6:65 [372]6:70 [373]8:12 [374]8:17 [375]8:18
[376]8:19 [377]8:20 [378]8:34 [379]8:43-44 [380]8:44
[381]9:3 [382]9:39 [383]10:14 [384]10:14-15 [385]10:27
[386]10:28 [387]11 [388]11:42 [389]12:16 [390]12:32
[391]12:32 [392]12:39-40 [393]12:40 [394]12:47 [395]12:47
[396]13:18 [397]14:6 [398]14:16 [399]14:17 [400]14:19
[401]15:5 [402]15:13 [403]15:16 [404]15:16 [405]15:16
[406]15:19 [407]17:2 [408]17:3 [409]17:6 [410]17:9
[411]17:9 [412]17:10 [413]18:11 [414]19:10-11 [415]19:11
[416]19:24 [417]19:24 [418]19:29 [419]19:29 [420]19:33
[421]19:34-37 [422]19:36 [423]19:36 [424]19:36 [425]19:37
[426]21:19

Acts

[427]1:4 [428]1:7 [429]1:24 [430]1:26 [431]2:5 [432]2:16
[433]2:23 [434]2:23 [435]2:23 [436]2:23 [437]2:23 [438]3:15
[439]3:18 [440]3:18 [441]3:18 [442]4:12 [443]4:21
[444]4:27-28 [445]4:27-28 [446]4:27-28 [447]4:27-28
[448]5:1-11 [449]5:31 [450]5:41 [451]5:41 [452]10:1
[453]10:1-11 [454]10:28 [455]10:35 [456]10:44 [457]11:18
[458]11:18 [459]12:23 [460]13:27 [461]13:27-29 [462]13:29
[463]13:41 [464]13:41 [465]13:47 [466]13:48 [467]13:48
[468]13:48 [469]13:48 [470]13:48 [471]14:17 [472]14:17
[473]15:8 [474]15:17 [475]15:18 [476]16:14 [477]17:28
[478]18:9 [479]18:10 [480]18:27 [481]18:48 [482]19:27
[483]20:20 [484]20:26 [485]20:27 [486]20:28 [487]20:28
[488]21:28 [489]22:14-15 [490]22:15 [491]23:11 [492]26:18
[493]28:27

Romans

[494]1:8 [495]1:24 [496]1:26 [497]1:28 [498]1:28 [499]2:1
[500]2:4 [501]2:5 [502]2:10-11 [503]2:12 [504]3 [505]3:1-2
[506]3:10-12 [507]3:20 [508]3:20-28 [509]3:27 [510]4:4
[511]4:15 [512]5:6 [513]5:8 [514]5:8-10 [515]5:8-10
[516]5:12 [517]5:12 [518]5:12 [519]5:12-21 [520]5:18
[521]5:18 [522]5:18-19 [523]5:19 [524]6:14 [525]6:14
[526]6:23 [527]7:4 [528]7:8 [529]7:19-25 [530]8:7 [531]8:8
[532]8:10 [533]8:16 [534]8:18 [535]8:26 [536]8:28 [537]8:28
[538]8:28 [539]8:28 [540]8:29 [541]8:29 [542]8:29 [543]8:29
[544]8:29-30 [545]8:29-30 [546]8:29-30 [547]8:30 [548]8:33
[549]8:34 [550]8:35-39 [551]9:6-7 [552]9:11 [553]9:11-12
[554]9:11-13 [555]9:13 [556]9:14 [557]9:15-18 [558]9:17
[559]9:17 [560]9:17 [561]9:17 [562]9:19 [563]9:19-21
[564]9:20-21 [565]9:21 [566]9:22 [567]9:22-23 [568]9:22-23
[569]9:23 [570]9:23 [571]10:13-14 [572]10:13-17 [573]11
[574]11:2-5 [575]11:5 [576]11:6 [577]11:6 [578]11:6
[579]11:7 [580]11:7-8 [581]11:8-10 [582]11:9-10 [583]11:11
[584]11:11 [585]11:22 [586]11:25-27 [587]11:29 [588]11:29
[589]11:32 [590]11:32 [591]11:33 [592]11:35 [593]11:36
[594]13:1-7 [595]14:4 [596]14:15 [597]14:23

1 Corinthians

[598]1 [599]1:18 [600]1:18 [601]1:31 [602]2:7 [603]2:8
[604]2:9-10 [605]2:11 [606]2:14 [607]2:14 [608]2:14
[609]2:19 [610]3:11 [611]3:12-15 [612]3:19-21 [613]4:7
[614]4:7 [615]4:7 [616]5:5 [617]6:19 [618]8:3 [619]8:11
[620]10:13 [621]12:3 [622]12:11 [623]14:19 [624]15:10
[625]15:22 [626]15:22 [627]15:22 [628]15:22 [629]15:24

2 Corinthians

[630]1 [631]1:9 [632]1:9 [633]2:14 [634]4 [635]4:7
[636]4:8-9 [637]4:14 [638]4:17 [639]5:15 [640]5:17
[641]5:17 [642]5:19 [643]5:21 [644]6:3 [645]7:9-10 [646]9:8
[647]11:3 [648]11:13 [649]11:14 [650]12:7-10 [651]13:5

Galatians

[652]2:20 [653]3:7 [654]3:16 [655]3:21 [656]3:28-29
[657]3:29 [658]4:6 [659]5:22-23

Ephesians

[660]1:4 [661]1:4 [662]1:4 [663]1:4 [664]1:4 [665]1:4-5
[666]1:4-5 [667]1:4-5 [668]1:5 [669]1:5 [670]1:5
[671]1:7-10 [672]1:11 [673]1:11 [674]1:11 [675]1:18-20
[676]1:19-20 [677]1:19-20 [678]1:22 [679]2:1-3 [680]2:1-3
[681]2:1-5 [682]2:3 [683]2:8 [684]2:8-9 [685]2:9
[686]2:9-10 [687]2:10 [688]2:10 [689]2:12 [690]3 [691]3:4-6
[692]3:11 [693]4:6 [694]4:13 [695]4:17-18 [696]4:30
[697]5:25 [698]6:5-9 [699]6:14

Philippians

[700]1:6 [701]1:12 [702]1:29 [703]2:12-13 [704]2:13
[705]3:8-9 [706]4:3 [707]4:3

Colossians

[708]1:17 [709]1:23 [710]1:27 [711]2:13 [712]3:11 [713]3:25

1 Thessalonians

[714]1:4 [715]1:4-5 [716]5:9

2 Thessalonians

[717]2:11 [718]2:13 [719]2:13 [720]2:13 [721]3:3

1 Timothy

[722]1:15 [723]2:3-4 [724]2:4 [725]2:4 [726]2:13-14
[727]2:14 [728]5:21 [729]5:21 [730]6:17

2 Timothy

[731]1:9 [732]1:9 [733]1:9 [734]2:10 [735]2:12 [736]2:19
[737]2:26 [738]4:18

Titus

[739]1:1 [740]3:5 [741]3:5 [742]3:5

Hebrews

[743]1:3 [744]2:9 [745]4:13 [746]7:25 [747]10:14 [748]11
[749]11:6 [750]11:16 [751]12:2 [752]12:5-6 [753]12:11
[754]12:29

James

[755]1:17 [756]4:15

1 Peter

[757]1:1 [758]1:5 [759]1:20 [760]1:20 [761]1:20 [762]2:8
[763]2:8 [764]2:9 [765]2:9 [766]2:24 [767]3:18 [768]3:19
[769]5:13

2 Peter

[770]1:10 [771]2:4 [772]2:4 [773]2:12 [774]2:22 [775]3:9

1 John

[776]2:2 [777]2:2 [778]2:19 [779]2:29 [780]3:9 [781]3:14
[782]3:14 [783]3:14 [784]3:24 [785]4:6 [786]4:10 [787]4:14
[788]4:19 [789]5:1 [790]5:10 [791]5:11 [792]5:11-13
[793]5:12 [794]5:13 [795]5:19

Jude

[796]1:4 [797]1:6 [798]1:6

Revelation

[799]2:2 [800]2:4 [801]2:9 [802]3:1 [803]3:5 [804]5:9
[805]5:11 [806]7:9-10 [807]12:7 [808]13:3 [809]13:8
[810]17:17 [811]17:17 [812]19:20 [813]21:1

Prayer of Manasseh

[814]1:4 [815]1:5