The Doctrines of Predestination, Reprobation, and Election

Pharaoh.—Inquirer,—“But what do you make of Pharaoh? Was he not a typical illustration of the unconditionally reprobated?”

Answer,—It is thought so. The apostle refers to the wicked king in the seventeenth verse. His case was analogous to that occupied by the Jews. He had been raised up from a sick bed, treated most graciously, but became hardened under the influence of mercy, and was at last destroyed. The Jews had also been very generously dealt with, but instead of yielding were becoming indurated, and unless they repented, would, as Pharaoh was, be destroyed. It is said that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and also that He hardened his own heart. Both statements are true, but looked at from different standpoints. God softens or hardens human hearts as they keep the mind in truth or falsehood.

The Potter and the Clay.—Inquirer,—“But what of the potter and the clay, verse twenty-one?”

Answer,—The question discussed in the ninth of the Romans is a question of Divine sovereignty, or God’s right to appoint the destinies of men after their moral probation is over. The potter claimed the right to say what he should do in respect of the vessels which he had made. Should one become marred in his hands, he makes it into a vessel of dishonour or inferiority. If not, if it turned out as he wished it, then it occupied the position of a vessel of honour. The illustration came with crushing power against the Jews. The attitude of hostility which they then occupied was that of being marred in the hands of God, and He claimed the right of appointing them their destiny. If they refused the Saviour whom Paul preached, if they continued morally unregenerated, then the mere fact of being Abraham’s seed would not save them. As regards their fate hereafter, they would be as clay in the hands of the potter.

We have thus seen that those passages so much relied on have really no bearing upon reprobation or predestination. They refer to another and distinct question—namely, that of Sovereignty. Had God a right to select the Jacobites as the Messianic people instead of the Edomites? The Jews would not dispute this. But had He a right to extend mercy as He saw fit? Had He a right to destroy Pharaoh when he refused to yield? Had He a right to deal with the destinies of men as He judged right? If He had, then the Jews had not a foot to stand upon in their absurd contention, that because they had descended from Abraham they must needs be saved. According to Paul’s theology, God, in the exercise of sovereignty, had appointed faith as the condition of salvation, and if they refused to comply with the condition, then, as the Israelites were destroyed in the wilderness for lack of faith, as Pharaoh was destroyed in the sea when he refused obedience, and as the potter assigned an inferior position to the marred vessel, so would the Divine Ruler visit the Jews with evil if they refused to accept of Christ.

There is nothing in this ninth chapter to frighten any one. The Jew expected to be saved by works (see vers. 30-33), and on the ground of his descent from Abraham. The apostle sweeps both of these away, and presents Christ as the only ground for them. And the ground that was for them is for all.

The Stone of Stumbling.—In 1 Peter ii. 8 it is written: “And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” This text is supposed to teach that the parties spoken of were appointed to be disobedient. At the first glance it would seem to teach this. But the principle of interpretation to which we have referred—namely, that when the mere grammatical construction of a passage is clearly absurd, it is clear it cannot be the true one, and we must look for another meaning. Now, if the “whereunto” refers to the “disobedient,” how could they be charged with disobedience if they were just doing what they were appointed to do? If Christ was put before those unbelievers for the purpose of making them disobey, then would not this be to put a stumbling-block in their way? Surely such conduct is infinitely the opposite of a good God.

Another translation of the passage, including verse 7, is this:—“Unto you, therefore, who believe He is precious; but unto those who disbelieve, the stone which the builders disallowed has become the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence. They, disbelieving the word, stumble—that is, fall or perish, whereunto also they were appointed.” That is, unbelievers are appointed to perish if they continue unbelievers. Horne says, “Hence it is evident that 1 Peter ii. 8 is not that God ordained them to disobedience (for in that case their obedience would have been impossible, and their disobedience no sin), but that God, the righteous Judge of all the earth, had appointed or decreed that destruction and eternal perdition should be the punishment of such disbelieving persons who willingly reject all the evidences that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the Saviour of the world. The mode of pointing above adopted is that proposed by Drs. John Taylor, Doddridge, and Macknight, and recognised by Greisbach in his Critical Edition of the New Testament, and is manifestly required by the context” (Vol. IV., p. 398). The passage as thus explained has no difficulty. Blessings come to those believing, evil to those disbelieving.

Foreordained to Condemnation.—In Jude, verse 4, it is written thus: “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were of old foreordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” The passage contains the reason why the apostle had urged the Christians to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. The term “ordained” in the passage means “to write before,” or “aforetime,” “to post up publicly in writing.” Certain men of bad character had got into the church, but the condemnation of such had been intimated before. Macknight says, “Jude means that these wicked teachers had their punishment before written—that is, foretold in what is written concerning the wicked Sodomites and rebellious Israelites, whose crimes were the same with theirs.” To write regarding certain characters, and intimating their punishment, is a widely different thing from unconditional reprobation.

The passages thus examined are the principal ones brought forward to prove that some men are foreordained to everlasting ruin. We do not think they prove this, and we reject the doctrine.

CHAPTER IV.
OBJECTIONS TO CALVINISTIC REPROBATION

In the first place, we object to it because it impeaches the Divine Fatherhood. God sustains to the human family the relation of a Father. He is the Creator of the sun and stars, but not their father. Fatherhood carries in it two ideas,—creation and similarity of nature. He is the Creator of the sun and stars, but they do not possess a nature like His. But in man there is a Divine likeness, an epitome of God. There is the power of thought, will, and feeling. In this broad view every man is a son of God. He has been created by Him, and, so far, is like Him. It is very true that man has rebelled and ignores the relationship. But denial of relationship does not abolish it. A son may deny his own father, and claim another to be so; and men have denied God, and acted as the children of the devil. But although they have rebelled, He earnestly remembers them. They are prodigals, but they are His prodigals. He made them, and He feels for them. A good father feels for all his children. Could we call a father a good father who foreordains that one-half of his offspring should be burned? But this is the doctrine of Calvinistic reprobation! It cannot stand in the light of the parable of the prodigal son. As that father in that parable felt to his prodigal child, so God feels to every one of His prodigals.

We reject this doctrine of unconditional reprobation,

In the second place, because it impeaches the Divine sincerity. Sincerity is descriptive of the harmony that exists between the feelings of the heart and the utterances of the lips.

 
“Sincerity,
The first of virtues, let no mortal leave
Thy onward path, although the earth should gape,
And from the gulph of hell destruction cry
To take dissimulation’s winding way.”
 

An insincere man, who professes one thing whilst he feels another, is universally despised. Now, when I take up the Bible, what do I find? I find it full of invitations to all men to come and be saved. “Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and be saved.” “Ho, every one that thirsteth; come ye to the waters.” “Turn ye, turn ye, why will you die?” Now, these invitations are addressed to all alike. Their value turns on this—does God mean what He says? Not so if Calvinistic reprobation be true. But if He does mean what He says—that He really wishes all saved—then these utterances reveal the great heart of God as it gathers round every human being; and the Calvinistic dogma of unconditional reprobation is a huge lie, that should be thrown back to the place whence it came.

CHAPTER V.
SUMMARY OF THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION

There is a doctrine of reprobation taught in the Bible. The word, as we have seen, is several times used in the sacred writings. It means, according to classic Greek, “not standing the test,” “spurious, base, properly (1.) of coin, (2.) of persons,” “ignoble, mean” (Liddell and Scott). In the Bible it signifies the same thing, “disapproved,” “rejected,” “undiscerning,” “void of judgment.” Cruden says, “This word among metallists is used to signify any metal that will not undergo the trial, that betrays itself to be adulterate or reprobate, and of a coarse alloy. . . .  A reprobate mind, that is, a mind hardened in wickedness, and so stupid as not to discern between good and evil.” We are quite familiar with the idea in everyday life. Ships, horses, land, governments, individuals, are being constantly subjected to trial, and, being found wanting, are rejected, reprobated. And what thus takes place in the lower plane of things, takes place in the sphere of morals. Men are now on trial for eternity. If they act as God wishes them, they shall walk with him in white, and sit down at the marriage-supper of the Lamb; but if not, then they will be rejected. The great principle is neither more nor less than this—namely, that men shall reap as they sowed. The principle is just. If men sow nettle-seed or the seed of briers and thorns, is it not fair that they should reap the fruit? The great principle, then, of the Bible is this: “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured by the sword” (Isaiah i. 19, 20).

It is a blessed thing, then, to know that on your head there is no decree of unconditional reprobation. You may be saved. Your heavenly Father wishes you saved, for He is “not willing that you should perish” (2 Peter iii. 9); and He wishes “all men saved” (1 Timothy ii. 4), and therefore you. He has done all He can for you. Will you be saved? It rests with you to build only on Christ, and conform your life after the pattern He has left.

PART III.—ELECTION

CHAPTER I.
THEORIES OF CALVINISTIC ELECTION

If the question of Calvinistic reprobation is fitted to freeze the blood and repel the mind from God, that of election, as represented by the same school, is calculated to perplex and disturb the inquirer after truth. At the noonday meeting in Glasgow, some time ago, the prayers of those present were requested on behalf of a lady who was troubled with the doctrine of election! She is, we believe, a type of thousands. Poor woman! had she listened to the teachings of Scripture instead of to those of man, she need have had no trouble in the matter. Heaven’s order is—“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” In other words, believe that God loves yourself, that Christ made an atonement for thy sin, and thou shalt enter among the saved ones—or the elect.

There are four different theories regarding this subject:—

(1.) There is, first, the supralapsarian theory. Those who hold this view are high Calvinists. According to this theory, God, without any regard to the good or evil works of men, resolved by an eternal decree, supra lapsum, antecedently to any knowledge of the fall of Adam, and independent of it, to reject some and save others; or, in other words, that God intended to glorify His justice in the condemnation of some as well as His mercy in the salvation of others, and for that end decreed that Adam should necessarily fall (Buck).

(2.) The second theory is designated sublapsarianism. According to this view, God permitted the first man to fall into transgression without absolutely predetermining his fall; or, that the decree of predestination regards man as fallen by an abuse of that freedom which Adam had. In other words, they regard the decrees of election and reprobation as having reference to man in his fallen condition. But according to this theory God loves only a portion of our race—gives His Son to die for this only, and His converting grace to this only. This portion is designated the elect.

(3.) A third view is that God loves all men, has given His Son to die for all men, but His saving grace is not given to all, but only to some. This is modern Calvinism. “Election is then,” says Dr. Payne, “God’s purpose to exert upon the minds of certain members of the human family that spiritual and holy influence which will secure their ultimate salvation” (Lect. on Sovy.)

(4.) A fourth view is that God loves all men, that Christ died for all men, and that converting grace is given to all men; and that those of mankind who believe God’s testimony regarding His Son, become His elect or chosen ones. It is this view which we support. The first three theories have points of difference and agreement, but in their last analysis they come to this, that God does not wish all men saved, only some—the elect.

CHAPTER II.
CALVINISTIC ELECTION INVOLVES POSITIVE REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SAVING GRACE FOR THE LOST

Dr. Payne, one of the subtlest and most accomplished of modern Calvinists, argues strongly against the notion that the decree of election involves the decree of reprobation. He says “I may determine to relieve one out of twenty destitute families in my neighbourhood, without positively determining not to relieve the others; and if any one should ask me why others are not relieved, it would be sufficient to reply that the giving of actual relief can only spring from a determination to relieve, which in reference to them does not exist. I may determine to take a book from the shelf, without a positive determination not to take the others. There may, indeed, be such a determination, but it is not necessarily implied in the determination to take, and that is all that I am obliged to prove—the other books may not even be thought of” (p. 40). Dr. Payne was a very subtle dialectician, but we fear he has here imposed upon himself in these illustrations. It is very true that when I determine to select book “A” from my library, that book “B” may not have been before my mind, and that I did not knowingly determine to reject it. But it may have been, and if it was, then the selection of “A” only, carried with it the rejection of “B.” A father sees his two children perishing in the waters. He jumps into a boat, and reaches the scene of disaster. The children are sinking from sheer exhaustion. He takes one into the boat, and returns to shore. He could easily have saved the other, but did not, and he tells the people this on landing, and that he must be simply judged by his act of saving the rescued child, and that he is not to be held as passing a decree of reprobation against the other. This, we submit, is Dr. Payne’s case. And will it bear looking at? I don’t think it. Dr. Payne adds, “This reasoning applies yet with greater force to the great Eternal. There must exist in the mind of God a determination to do what He actually does, because His actions are the result of His volitions or determinations. But where God does not act, where He does nothing, He determines nothing. It is childish to suppose that because when He acts, there must be a determination to act, when he does not act, there must be a determination not to act, since a determination is necessary to a state of action, but it surely is not necessary to a state of rest. When Jehovah created the present universe, is it necessary to suppose that there existed in His mind a positive determination not to create any of the other possible universes which were present to His views? Surely not.” But we should say, Surely yes. If twenty plans are presented to me, and I select one only, does not this imply the rejection of the others? To the Divine mind there must have been present the conception of many different kinds of worlds than the one we are in; but of the possibles He chose the present system as, all things considered, the best. Had there been a better world and God did not make it, it must have been, according to the optimists, either because God did not know of it, or was unable to make it, or was unwilling,—all of which suppositions are either incompatible with the omniscience, the omnipotence, or the goodness of God. When the Creator selected the present system, He rejected the “possibles” that might have been brought into being. I am surprised that Dr. Payne should say that “determination” is not necessary to a state of rest, or non-action. In thousands of instances non-action—rest—is as much the result of volition as is the most determined activity. The old divines used to divide sin into acts of commission and omission. But in every sin of omission there was action implied. If I do not help the needy when he crieth, my non-help—my rest as regards aid—carries action in it—determination. Dr. Payne again says, “When God determined to save man, did that volition necessarily imply a positive determination not to save the angels who kept not their first estate? No one, it is presumed, Will answer in the affirmative. It implies, indeed, that fallen angels were not included in the merciful purpose of God, that there was no volition to save them; but no degree of ingenuity can gather any conclusion beyond this from the facts of the case. Why, then, should a positive determination, on the part of God, to save some of the human family be supposed to imply of necessity a counter and positive determination not to save the other members of the family. Not to save men is not to act, it is just doing nothing.” But this is a very partial view of the case. What God did in the case of the fallen angels we know nothing, and can affirm nothing. But one may do nothing from one side of things, and do a great deal from another. The priest and the Levite just did nothing as far as helping the man was concerned. They rested, but in this rest there was action which has covered them with obloquy for all time. And if God has special influence at His disposal, and determines to give it to some when He knew that others needed it as much, and yet withholds it from them, His withholding it is as much an act as the gift of it. He passed the non-elect over in applying the influence, and no ingenuity can make it otherwise. But what He does in time He determined to do in eternity—He determined to pass them over. The illustration, therefore, of the book is worthless.

CHAPTER III.
CALVINISTIC ELECTION CONSIDERED IN REFERENCE TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

The Divine sovereignty may be said to be the great foundation on which the various shades of Calvinists take their stand. Here they think they are as safe as if they stood on adamant. But assertion is not argument, and he who asserts must prove.

Dr. Payne, in his preliminary lecture, discusses the question of sovereignty, and endeavours to show that there is a difference between supremacy and sovereignty. By the former punishment is inflicted, by the latter good. If by sovereingty we mean that God has absolute power to do whatsoever He pleases, then it will comprehend the penalty of transgression, as well as the bestowment of good. And this, as we apprehend, is the correct view of the case. The Divine sovereignty being one of the main pillars of his system, Dr. Payne gives various illustrations of it.

(1.) He instances the varied mental powers bestowed on men. He says, “The mind of one man is marked by infantile weakness, of another by a giant’s strength. Nothing can elevate the former, nothing permanently depress and overpower the latter. . . . In the case of certain persons, the reasoning powers preponderate; in that of others, the imagination. One man has little judgment, but an exuberant fancy. Another has received the gift of a piercing intellect; but if it be clear as a frosty night, it is also as cold. A third is all impetuosity and fire, but it is a fire that scorches and consumes everything that comes in its way. We can account for these diversities by the principle of sovereignty alone. God ‘divideth to every man severally as He will,’ ‘He giveth none account of these matters,’ ‘He has a right to do what He will with His own.’ ” Now, we do not question God’s right to do what He will with His own, but is this difference in mental calibre purely an arbitrary act? Has brain, nerve, habit, nothing to do with the case? and marriage? and education? Look at the biographies of prominent men, and what do we find? Much depends evidently on the mother, as in the case of Bacon, Erskine, Brougham, Cromwell, Canning, Byron. The last-mentioned, writing of himself, says, that his “springs of life were poisoned.” His mother was a most passionate woman, and is reported to have died of a fit of ill-nature at the sight of her upholsterer’s bills. The possession, then, of talent is not purely arbitrary, but dependent on parentage, training, surroundings. There was one question, indeed, which would have upset the whole of these illustrations. It was this:—Whence comes insanity? It would never be contended that God made some individuals insane and others sane, by a merely arbitrary act. We find, in hundreds of instances, that it is hereditary. One observer considers that six-sevenths of the cases arise from this one cause. When, then, Dr. Payne quotes the words, “He giveth none account of these things,” we ask, is it so? Has He not written His mind in the providence around us? Let certain habits be encouraged, certain marriages entered into, and we require no ghost to rise and tell us what the issue will be. God is telling it to us every day. Departure on the part of parents from organic laws entails misery, even to imbecility, on the children. We do not, of course, deny that there are diversities among men; but we do deny that these are purely arbitrary, like the gift of special grace, and are therefore inept as illustrative of it.

(2.) Dr. Payne refers to providential blessing as illustrative of sovereignty. He remarks, “That inequalities in the external condition and circumstances exist, is manifest to all. The questions, then, which force themselves upon our attention are these: Do these inequalities originate with God, or with man?” He asks, “Why one is born rich, and another poor? How is it to be explained that two persons equal in talent and moral worth, obtain such unequal measure of success? . . . The facts are entirely to be resolved into Divine sovereignty. God is here exercising the right of testimony, the bounties of His providence upon men, as it seems good in His sight.” It is very true that God is the source of all the good in the world, but does He bestow it arbitrarily? If a man neglects being thrifty, and lives beyond his means, his offspring will inherit his poverty. There are economic as well as physical laws in the world, and the non-observance of them descends unto the third and fourth generations.

Dr. Payne appeals to health as illustrating his position. He says, “It is impossible to account for the fact that of two individuals equal in point of moral worth, one is the constant subject of bodily infirmity, and the other the habitual possessor of health; but by admitting that the hand of sovereignty confers upon the latter a measure of good to which he has no claim” (p. 32). Doubtless, health is a precious blessing; but is it given arbitrarily, like special grace? Every one knows that its possession depends upon the observance of laws, both in parents and offspring. It is the result of complying with conditions, and there is no analogy between it and the gift of special influence, which is entirely unconditional.

The chief illustration which Dr. Payne gives of Divine sovereignty is, “The exertion of that holy influence upon the minds of the chosen to salvation, by which they are brought to the knowledge and belief of the Gospel, together with the Divine purpose to exert this influence of which it is at once the index and the accomplishment” (p. 33). We shall, however, endeavour to show that there is no such irresistible influence as that for which the doctor contends. God is a sovereign—the only absolute sovereign in existence; but He is all-wise and all-good, not willing that any should perish.

We have thus examined those illustrations of Dr. Payne. They are a kind of stock in trade of those who build their faith upon the dogmas of Calvin.