election

[Mike Abendroth]

 

 

Mike bremmer

ELECTION DEFINED

Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof defines unconditional election as: "That eternal act of God whereby He, in His sovereign good pleasure, and on the account of no foreseen merit in them, chooses a certain number of men to be the recipients of special grace and eternal salvation" (Berkhof, Systematic Theology , P.114). The Canons of Dort state: "Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He hath, out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault, from their primitive state of rectitude, into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and foundation of salvation."

By unconditional election, then, Calvinists mean:
(1) Out of fallen humanity God chose certain persons unto salvation. God elects people.
(2) The number of God's elect is fixed.
(3) God does not elect individuals based on foreseen merit of any kind, including faith. Election is an act of God's sovereign choice.
(4) God's election and calling are invincible.
(5) The purpose and motive of God's election are His glory, "To the praise of His glorious grace!"

Many differences exist between Arminians and Calvinists, but the fundamental difference between Calvinists and Arminians regarding the doctrine of election is the basis of election. By basis I mean the reason God elects anyone unto salvation. For the Calvinist, the basis of election is the sovereign purpose and grace of God. Arminians, however, differ widely among themselves on this issue.
Dake , for example, in his Dake's Annotated Reference Bible , writes: "This is what God chose before the over throw of Lucifer's world - that all of the new race of Adam who accepted Jesus Christ should be holy and without blame before Him in love. It is this plan that is chosen for all believers, not the individual conformity of any one person to that plan. The final choice is left up to the individual and not God. All are called and chosen to become holy before God in love if they want to accept this plan and choice of God, but only those who meet the conditions will be so blessed . .. This is the true meaning of election and predestination wherever found in Scripture . . . That is, the plan is predestined and foreknown, not individual conformity to that plan" (NT. 213).

According to Dake, God predestined and foreknew the plan. The FLSB ( Full Life Study Bible ), however, says that the church is foreknown and predestined: "Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship (the church) is chosen by God to be His very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and pilot of this ship. All who desire to be part of this elect ship and its captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come on board the ship. As long as one is on the ship, in company with its captain, he is among the elect. If he chooses to abandon the ship and Captain, he ceases to be one of the elect. Election is always union with the Captain and Ship" (P. 1847). Another view is election only means God chooses communities and nations to external blessings of the gospel, that God ordains some communities and nations to the true knowledge of the faith and privileges of the gospel. This knowledgeable Calvinists do not deny. Calvinists do deny, however, that this is the only election in the Scriptures. The Scriptures, as we will see, also speak of individual election. Lastly, some teach that God elects those whom He foresees will believe and persevere till the end. This is perhaps the most popular Arminian view on election.

Refuting these views separately is not necessary. If we examine the fundamental principles they share in common and refute these, then we disproved the Arminian views. For example, one common element to three Arminian views is that election is not individualistic. In other words, God does not elect people. God elects the plan, or the Church, or, lastly, God elects nations or communities. As mention earlier, Calvinists do not deny that these are real elections taught in the Scripture. Calvinists do deny that these are the grounds of election unto salvation. If therefore we prove that God elects individuals unto salvation, then these three Arminian views are wrong.

Another common element to all Arminian views is that election is conditional. We must do something to be elected. We must join the plan, or become part of the body, or believe, then we become the elect. Therefore, if we prove that election is unconditional, then all Arminian views are wrong.

Lastly, since foreknowledge is an intricate part of divine election, all Arminian views must explain foreknowledge within the parameters of their particular view on election. For example, according to Dake only the plan of God is foreknown. If, then, we prove that the proper understanding of foreknowledge is the Calvinist view, then all Arminian views are wrong.

GOD ELECTS PEOPLE

These are two of many scriptures that support the fact that God elects people (see Scripture Reference section for more): "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13.48). This verse makes it clear that election to eternal life is the cause, not the effect, of believing; and election unto salvation is personal, not corporate. God elects people for salvation. Obviously, Arminians must make this verse mean something other then what the normal reader would understand. The FLSB comments: "Some have understood this verse as teaching arbitrary predestination." The word "arbitrary," according to Webster's means, "not governed by principle, depending on volition; based on one's preference, notion or whim." I know of no Calvinist who understands election in this manner; nor does the comment's writer, for such a Calvinist does not exist. All Calvinists believe that God unconditionally elects some unto salvation; Yet His decree is not arbitrary. He is sovereign to be sure. He chooses whom He wills; but He acts according to His nature.

Furthermore, by saying that the Calvinistic view makes God's act of election arbitrary reveals the real nature of the Arminian objection: They will not bow to God's sovereignty. For the Arminian to say that because he can see no reason why God elects some and not others in the Calvinistic scheme, therefore God must act arbitrary, means the Arminian knows all of what God knows!

However, for the sake of discussion, we will assume that what the FLSB 's writer means is that God elects unconditionally. This Calvinists readily accept. The FLSB goes on to say: "However, neither the context nor the word translated ordained' (GK. tetagmenoi from tasso) warrant this interpretation. (1) v. 46 explicitly emphasizes responsibility in accepting or rejecting eternal life . . . " The Bible does teach clearly, plainly, and thoroughly, human responsibility of accepting or rejecting Christ, and this is what Calvinists have always said. So it is indeed a mystery how the writer can conclude: "The best rendering of tetagmenoi, therefore, is 'were disposed'; "and as many as were disposed to eternal life believed.' "

The writer of this comment tells us that since this passage emphasizes human responsibility, the word tetagmenoi means "to be disposed." This is truly a pathetic approach to hermeneutics! Nowhere in Scripture is tasso or the words derived from it, used in the sense "to be disposed." Why then assign a meaning to the word that has no such usage in Scripture? Noted scholar F. F. Bruce comments: "There is no good reason for weakening the predestinarian note here, as (e. g.) H. Alford does by rendering as many as were disposed to eternal life.' The Greek participle is (tetagmeuos) from (tasso), and there is papyrus evidence for the use of this verb in the sense of 'inscribe' or 'enroll'." (NTC: ACTS P. 267).

C. H. Spurgeon rightly observes: "Attempts have been made to prove these words do not teach predestination, but these attempts so clearly do violence to language that I will not waste time answering them . . . I read: 'as many were ordained to eternal life believed,' and I shall not twist that text but shall glorify the grace of God by ascribing to it every man's faith . . . Is it not God who gives the disposition to believe? If men are disposed to have eternal life, doest not He in every case dispose them? Is it wrong for God to give grace? If it be right for Him to give it, is it wrong for Him to purpose to give it? Would you have Him give it by accident? If it is right for Him to have purpose to give grace today, it was right for him to purpose to give it before that date-and, since He Changes not - from eternity."

On Acts 13.48 Dake comments: "The simple meaning is that God has appointed and provided eternal life for all who will believe." (NT. 139). In the English language, and for that matter Greek also, one reads from left to right, not, as Dake seems to do, right to left. The Scripture does not say that those who believe were appointed to eternal life, it says those who were appointed to eternal life believed .

The Second verse offered as proof that God also elects people unto salvation is 2 Thess. 2.13: "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because He has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth."

It is clear from the context of this passage that Paul is not speaking of the church, but people. They are chosen, not a plan or the Church.

ELECTION IS UNCONDITIONAL

Verses proving Election is unconditional are so explicit that they need no comment. See: Eph. 1.5-11; 2 Tm. 1.9; Jn. 15.16, 19; Mt. 11.25-26; Rom. 9.10-18; Ti. 3.5; Rom. 11.4-7; 1 Cor. 1.27-29.

FOREKNOWLEDGE

Since foreknowledge is a fundamental element of election, both Arminians and Calvinist's views of election must explain the relationship of foreknowledge to election. As we have seen, in the Arminian view some hold that the plan is foreknown. Others say God foreknows the Church. Lastly, in most popular Arminian view of election, God foresees who will believe and persevere and elects them. The Calvinistic view of foreknowledge is God from all eternity set His love and affection on certain people. These He "foreknew."

Nowhere in Scripture is it said that it is the plan, Church, or foreseen faith that God foresees as the basis of election to salvation. In Romans 8.29-30 Paul uses personal pronouns. It is "Whom He foreknew," not "what He foreknew."

Furthermore, Calvinism rejects election based on foreseen faith and perseverance for following reasons: (1) Assuming for the moment that God does elect those whom He foresees will believe. Where does this foreseen faith come from? If faith is produce in whole or in part by the person, then salvation is by works, (2 Tm. 1.9) the biblical doctrine of the total depravity of humanity is denied, and regeneration is no longer monoergistic. If, on the other hand, faith is a gift from God, as the Scriptures plainly say (Eph. 2.8-10; Philp. 1.29; 1 Cor. 4.7; 2 Pet. 1.2; Acts 5.31; Jn. 6. 6.44, 45. 65), then election, foreseen or otherwise, is still the result of God's sovereign choice.

(2) Since faith and repentance are gifts from God and the fruit of election, they cannot be the grounds or merit of God's electing grace. If God grants faith and repentance to some and not to others, and this is self evident, then it was God's purpose to give these gifts to some, and not to others. If the giving of faith and repentance are according to God's purpose, then faith and repentance cannot be the condition of election. In other words, it is impossible for the one event to be both the cause and effect . Faith and repentance cannot be both the grounds and fruit of election. (Eph. 2.8-10; 1.4; 1 Pet. 1.2; Acts 5.31; 1 Cor.4.7; Jn. 6.37, 39; 10.26; Acts 13.48; 18.27; Rom. 9.11, 18, 22; Eph. 1.4-5; 2 Thess. 2.13; Philp. 1.29).

(3) Nowhere in Scripture is it said that God elects based on foreseen faith. Scripture does say that God elects according to foreknowledge (1 Pet. 1.2), but it does not say this foreknowledge is foreseen faith. This is indeed strange. As often as the apostle Paul makes reference to election, one would think that Paul would somewhere mention that the basis of election is foreseen faith. But He does not do so; and considering the fact that many fiercely objected to the doctrine that he did teach, not to mention this supposed basis for election is a tactical blunder on Paul's part. For instance, had Paul mention in Rom. 9 that election is according to foreseen faith, no one would have objected to God choosing Jacob over Esau. However, because Paul apparently forgot to mention this in his teaching some objected, "Why does He still find fault? For who resist His will?" We will develop this thought in more detail later.

(4) "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 Reformed Doctrine of Predestination , P. 99).

(5) Election based on foreseen faith is no election at all. Thornwell expressed this thought very well: "This scheme, which suspends election upon foreseen faith and perseverance, amounts to a downright denial of the doctrine altogether, or, if there is any choice in the case at all, it is the sinner choosing God, and not God the sinner. Arminians represent faith and perseverance as prescribed conditions of salvation. The man, therefore, who complies with the conditions of salvation obtains the blessings promise upon a principle very different from that of election. It is an abuse of language to say that an individual under these circumstances is chosen to receive the blessing . . . The Arminians, therefore, charge the Apostles and our savior Himself with an outrageous abuse and perversion of language when they represent them as using plain and familiar words in an acceptation they cannot bear." ( The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell , vol, 2, P. 126).

(6) Election grounded on foreseen faith and perseverance solves nothing for the Arminian. For if God foresees who will believe and on this ground elects them - which is no election at all - then the salvation of those He foresees is certain; and those whom He foresees not to believe, will never believe. In each case the destiny of the individual is forever fixed.

(7) Lastly, the Scripture states that the basis of our election is "the good pleasure of His will" (Eph. 1.5,9; Rom. 9.11-15;11.5; 2 Tm. 1.9).

© Copyrighted

 

OBJECTIONS TO UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

Objections to the doctrine of unconditional election fall into two categories: (a) Objections on supposed moral grounds, and (b) objections on supposed exegetical grounds.

MORAL OBJECTIONS

The most often objection to the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election is that it makes God unjust, in that He willing does for one what He will not do for another. This objection evidences a devastating flaw in Arminian theology. It assumes that humanity is not guilty of any sin at all! When Arminians say God must be just they mean He must make salvation available to all. However, this is not justice -- it is grace. For God to be just, He must condemn the unrighteous and justify the righteous. Justifying the unrighteous is unjust. The Arminian should take care not to yell to loudly that God must be just in His dealings with him; God might hear and grant his demand!

Of course, the Arminian does not really mean he wants God to be just. What He wants is for God to be fair. Fairness, however, is a human idea, and not an attribute of God. God must be just. God is just. But unconditional election--the choosing of some unto salvation and not others--is not a display of God's justice, but of His grace! Election is of grace: "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace" (Rom. 11.5 NRSV).

Moreover, note: (1) The Scripture teaches that God has a right to do as He wills with what is His. For example, in Rom. 9.21, the apostle Paul is answering the accusation that his doctrine of election makes God unjust (vs. 19). Paul writes: "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel for honorable use, another for common use?" In other words, Paul is simply saying that God is not unjust since He is free to do as He wills with what belongs to Him. As the potter has the right to do as he wills with his lump of clay, so too God has the right to do as He wills with His creation. The New Testament Commentary says: "The main idea Paul is putting across is this: If even the potter has the right out of the same lump or mass of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor, then God, our Maker, has the right, out of the same mass of human beings who by their own guilt have plunged themselves into the pit of misery, to elect some to everlasting life, and to allow others to remain in the abyss of wretchedness" (Hendriksen, NTC: Romans , P. 327).

May not the Sovereign' reign Lord on high
Dispense His favors as He wills;
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 truth so bright
Should dazzle and confound thy sight
Yet still His written will obey,
And wait the great decisive day!

(2) The providence of God proves that not only does God have the right to do as He wills with what is His, but He also exercises His right; and He is under no obligation to do for one what He graciously does for another. Is it fair that you or I should be born in a country where we have plenty to eat, while another is born in a different place living only long enough to die of starvation? Is it fair that one is born with an I. Q. of 180, while another only 70 (Ex. 4.11)? God is not obligated to treat one based on how He treats another. God obviously does not deal with His creatures equally. God deals with His creatures as He wills. His treatment of them is always just; however, it is according to His justice, and infinite wisdom, and not what the creature thinks or believes to be just, wise, or fair. In saying this "We teach nothing but what experience proves to be true - that God always been at liberty to bestow his grace on whom He would." (Calvin).

The harsh realities of life, when viewed in divine sovereignty and providence, can have a chilling affect on our souls. However, at this point the Calvinist can take heart, realizing that God is not some arbitrary despot randomly ordering our existence on a whim; rather He is our sovereign Father who has promised He will " Cause all things to work together for good, to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose " (Rom. 8.28).

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust him for his grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.

                                                          William Cowper

(3) If God was under obligation to provide salvation to all sinners, then God would be unjust to save some while excluding others from His saving grace. But where in the Scripture is the idea that God is under obligation to save anyone at all? Search the Scriptures! It is by Grace, and not obligation that God in His infinite mercy and wisdom chooses some to salvation, leaving the rest in their sin and misery; and if God is not obligated to bestow His saving grace on all alike, then is He not free to bestow it on whom He Pleases?

Furthermore, if God must provide salvation for all, or at least provide an opportunity for all--and this Arminians must admit--then why are some providentially position in a place and time that ensures that they never hear the gospel (Acts 17.24-26)? That this has occurred, and still occurs, no one can refute. Some Arminians have attempted to answer this with the explanation that if those who never hear the gospel would respond to the light given to them in both nature and consciousness, then God will save them. But where is this doctrine found in the Scriptures? And how is this notion different from salvation by works? According to Romans 1-3, the light of nature and conscious only serves to make all accountable before God. Furthermore, this notion is a complete denial of the biblical doctrine of the total depravity of man: "There is none who seek for God" (Rom. 3.11).

A Second objection to the doctrine of unconditional election is that it violates freewill. However, the element of personal choice is as much a part of Calvinism as Arminianism. Calvinists believe that salvation is by grace through faith, and although faith is a gift from God, it is still a choice we exercise. We believe. We exercise faith. There is no dispute here between the Arminians and Calvinists. Before God's work of grace in us we did not believe. The reason for our unbelief is that we were slaves to sin, Satan, and the world. The gospel to us was foolishness; a crutch for the simple minded. But after God's great and glorious work within our hearts, through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the gospel became the good news and we chose to believe. There was no coercion. No one is forced to believe against their will. D. M. Lloyd-Jones has well said: "The will is never forced. What happens is that the Holy Spirit, by putting this new disposition within us, this new ability, enables us to appreciate the truth. What used to be 'foolishness' suddenly becomes meaningful to us, becomes wonderful; and because we now see what it is, we desire it. The important factor is not the will itself, but that which governs and controls the will. The will is merely a kind of executive faculty; it is always determined by something else. Formerly it was determined by the devil; but now the Holy Spirit reveals these things to us and we desire them. No man is ever saved against his will, or browbeaten into salvation. You are given such a view of it that you want it with the whole of your being. You who formerly rejected it, and regarded it as folly, now see its glory and you embrace it with all the energy of your will." ( Romans: 8.17-39 . P. 247).

We might add that when one rejects the gospel message, it is done so by one's own choice. Furthermore, the idea that God will not violate our "freewill"--freewill as conceived by those who decry God's absolute sovereignty and predestination--is only accomplished through God's death. One is invariable force to recreate God, to make a less powerful god who does not foresee all things. For if we reduced God's sovereignty to the bare minimum of merely allowing what He foresees, those events are nonetheless eternally fixed, since what He allows to occur surely must occur; that it does occur means it is according to His plans and purpose (Eph. 1.11). Consequently, God's very existence violates the freewill as envision by the opponents of Calvinism. This biblical Deity must die. Arminians must create a softer, less obtrusive god to protect their sacred freewill.

Most believers have a problem with Calvinism because they do not understand what freewill means and does not mean. Will means the power of choice. God created humanity with the power of choice, and the fall did not alter this ability to choose. But what does free mean? Or, to put the question more precisely, free from what? Free from God? Free from the flesh? Free from Satan? Free from ones environment and fixed limitations? Free to act independent from any and all internal or external forces? The will is not free in this manner. In other words, Calvinists deny the Arminian idea of freewill as having the power of contrary choice; that in any given situation-- having taken in all factors and conditions-- a person can choose in any direction whatsoever. That no cause affects the will. This is the Arminian doctrine of the power of contrary choice, or the liberty of indifference, and it is essential to a truly "free" will in Arminian theology. However, as John Gerstner, in his excellent pamphlet, A Primer on Freewill explains: "Free will in the sense of a will, or faculty, in us that produces our choices out of thin air, out of nothing, based on no controlling factors, is a will-o-wisp. It is a nonentity. It makes no sense at all. We simply do not exercise our wills that way. We do, as a mater of fact, choose, but we always have reasons for choosing the way we actually choose."

(3) Another objection to the doctrine of unconditional election is that such a doctrine removes human responsibility. This objection, however, is another example of the Arminian failure to understand the Calvinist teachings. Calvinists do not deny that we determine our destiny. A. A. Hodge, who is not shy about his Calvinistic views, writes: "That our consciousness of personal freedom is reliable, that we in a true sense stand outside of the current of necessary causation and do truly originate and give direction to our own actions, is a principle fundamental to all morals and religion." ( Evangelical Theology , P.134).

The Scripture teaches that God has decreed all that occurs, both events and means, and that no event occurs outside God's decree (Eph. 1.11). The Scripture also teaches that we, as free moral agents, are responsible and that our destiny is in our hands as much as belongs to rational, finite creatures. Not only is this true in our everyday affairs, it is also true in our spiritual life as well. Whether we choose to believe the gospel and receive the gift of eternal life, or reject it and perish in our sin and misery, the choice-- along with its consequence--belong to us.

The sovereignty of God and the freewill of humanity is an antimony. How can God be sovereign and we act freely? How is it possible that God ordains and we, of our own will, accomplish that which had been determine in eternity? Calvinists do not pretend to know the answers to these perplexing questions. We do know that the Scriptures teach both truths side by side.

Those with overly tidy minds think that believing that God is sovereign in all things, yet we are still free moral agents unreasonable. Yet they carp at the idea only when it is spoken of concerning salvation and unconditional election. In their practice they are nevertheless Calvinists. If, for example, when they begin a new business adventure they will not call upon some impotent pathetic deity. No, they will call upon the Mighty and Sovereign Lord to make their enterprise prosperous, knowing that He is in Control; yet they work hard, plan well, and succeed through their efforts. Or what farmer prays for a good crop, knowing God is sovereign, yet does not plow and sow his field? As Christians, in our everyday practical experience we all work and pray believing that God is in absolute control of all things, and that we are responsible. Calvinists merely ask that we turn and face the conductor as we play.

Arminians object that the doctrine of unconditional election makes the preaching of the gospel unnecessary. This is not true. Salvation is not by election. Election is one part of many in the redemption of God's people. Election means that God has chosen some to be saved, and these alone will be saved. But as we have seen, God normally works through means; and the means God has chosen to cause the salvation of the elect is the preaching of the gospel; moreover, the objection is itself irrelevant since God commands us in His word to go into all the world and preach the gospel. Since we have God's command, we need no justification to act.

Finally, we point out again that the Scriptures teach that we all have a will, we make choices, and we are responsible for them; nothing written in this article is intended to say differently. Scripture is equally clear that God "works all things after the counsel of His will," and "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Eph. 1.11; Phil. 2.13), and nothing in this article is intended to say differently.

You may have heard that Calvinists and those who hold to a Reformed view do not believe in freewill; that we do not preach the gospel least by mistake someone might be saved who has not been elected; or believe that God will not save a repentant sinner if the sinner is not on "the list." These accusations and false caricatures are the products of minds that are both theological shallow and historically inept. All too often, the view of some obscure writer or extreme group is found to support false accusations against Calvinism, and in secular media style are made representative of all Calvinists. This tactic, which slanders and bears false witness against fellow brothers in the Lord, is intellectually dishonest and sinful; and points to the reason why statements about what a particular group believes must come from their authoritative sources.

Unlike many "contemporary" churches that boast "no creed but Christ," the Reformed hold to the Standards and Creeds of their faith. Therefore, one need not sit in a Reformed church and listen to the preacher for six months to learn what the church teaches and believes; nor does one need to go to "special classes" to discover what the church believes. If one wants to know what the Reformed really believe all one needs to do is turn to the Westminster Confession of Faith, one of the Creeds of the Reformed. If, for example, one wants to know what the Reformed believe concerning freewill they can read it for themselves in 3.1 and 9.1.

The idea that the Reformed do not evangelize is absurd. Those with even an elementary knowledge of Church history know that some of histories greatest evangelists and missionaries have been Calvinists. Even more absurd is that such accusations sometimes come from those who in their own churches use the most successful evangelistic program ever produce, Evangelism Explosion. Evangelism Explosion is currently used in many countries resulting in the salvation of hundreds of thousands of people. Evangelism Explosion was developed and written by Reformed pastor Dr. James D. Kennedy, of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church.

We urge everyone, especially those standing behind pulpits, inform yourselves with the facts. If Calvinism or Reformed theology trouble you, make sure that you do not resort to the use of misinformation, lies, and slander. For everyone will stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

EXEGETICAL OBJECTIONS:

(1) Arminians object that since the Bible makes a universal offer of the gospel, unconditional election cannot be true. This objection is groundless. Calvinists insist, right along with Arminians, that whosoever wants to come can come, and the one who does come Christ will never cast out. The salvation made by Christ is sufficient for all; and anyone - whether they have been elected from the foundation of the world or not - who believes in Christ will be saved; however, Calvinists insist that only the elect will choose to believe.

(2) There are some passages in Scripture that seem to indicate that it is God's will that all be saved. The classic Arminian proof text on this is 1 Tm. 2.4, "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." Lets assume that this verse is saying exactly what Arminians claim it says: That it is God's will for all people to be saved. If this is true, then:
(a) God failed to do as He desired, for not all are saved; and if God is unable to accomplish His desire then there can never be assurance of salvation for anyone. For if God is not able through His almighty power to accomplish that which He desires, then how can we be sure that this power (1 Pet. 1.4), which man can defeat, can keep anyone safe? Furthermore, since God knew that His purpose would fail, least we rob Him of His foreknowledge as well, yet still implemented a plan doom to failure, cast doubt on His perfection of wisdom.

Arminians, however, point out that the problem is not with God's power, but with man's freewill. God cannot, or at least will not, violate human freewill. This sounds appealing, but where in the Scripture is this fundamental principle of Arminian theology to be found? No where. In fact, a careful search of the Scriptures reveals that human freewill poses no problem for God in accomplishing His desires. (Ex. 14.4; Deut. 2.30; Jud. 9.23; 7.22; 2 Sam. 17.14; 2 Kgs 12.15; 1 Chron. 5.26; 2 Chron. 25.20; 36.22; Ezra 6.22; Prv. 19.21; 21.1; 1 Sam. 2.25; Rev. 17.17; 2 Thess. 2.11-12; Isa. 44.28).

(b) The biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God is denied. The Scriptures clearly teach that God's sovereignty rules over all, (Ps. 103.19), that the Lord does whatever He pleases (Ps. 135.6), He does according to His will in both heaven and earth (Dan. 4.35), that nothing is too difficult for Him (Jer. 32.27), and that He knows the end from the beginning and His purpose and good pleasure will be accomplished (Isa. 46.9-10). The Arminian, however, needs to supply to these verses the exception, "except when it involves human freewill." That God's sovereignty rules over all, except man's freewill; that whatever the Lord pleases He does, if man's freewill agrees; that nothing is too difficult for God, except man's almighty freewill. This of course stabs at the very heart of theistic theology and destroys the very foundation of Christianity.

(C) Why, if God's will is for all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, does God place people in times and places that ensure they never hear the gospel and come to a knowledge of the truth? Why does He do more in one age than another? Why does He at one point in history send true revival resulting in thousands upon thousands being saved, and at other times, more so then the latter, nothing at all? Why did Christ do miracles in Chorazin and Bethsaida instead of Trye and Sidon, pagan cities that according to our Lord would have repented? Why did God wait so long after the fall of Adam to send the Second Adam? And on we can go. If God desires all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, then God is an impotent deity who lacks both power and wisdom to accomplish His purposes.

CALVINISTIC VIEW

Calvinists generally understand 1 Tm. 2.4 to mean all kinds of people, much in the same manner as 1 Tm. 6.10: "The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil" (NAS). The NAS rightly supplies the word "sort." However, in the original language the verse reads, "A root for all evils is the love of money." Yet money is not the root of all evil. The sense here, as the NAS translates, is "all sorts of." In 1 Tm. 2.4 and 6 "all" is used in the sense of all kinds of people, Jew, Greek, barbarian, women, etc. It certainly cannot mean, as has been shown, every person whoever lived.

The context of this passage supports this view. Surely Paul is not saying that Christians should pray for every person, but for all kinds of, all classes of people. However, least I am accused of allowing my Calvinistic view to color my interpretation - which of course it does, but no more than the Arminian his -- I cite the following comment on 1 Tm. 2.1-2 : "Have we gone to our knees and buried our faces in our hands and wept before God for all men? - for the mighty and the lowly, the rich and the poor, the well fed and the hungry, the wicked and the "good," the responsible and the lawless, men in the Kremlin and men in the White House, the black, the white, the red, the yellow . . . all men (The ellipsis is the author's). When once we truly have prayed for all men, . . . we may understand something more of the mercies of "God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth" (1 Tm. 2.4)."

These are not John Calvin words, although I do not believe he would disagree with them. These are the words of Robert Shank from his book, Elect in the Son, P.91. Shank, in case some are unaware, has probably done more in our day to advance Arminianism then any other writer.

ARGUMENTS FOR ELECTION

(1) If God does not unconditionally elect His own, then why do Christians pray for a love one's salvation? If the sole determining factor in one's salvation is that he or she chooses to believe, then why pray? Will not God say, "I really would like to help but it is up to the individual whether they will be saved." "But God," the believer cries, "Can you help them believe, even just a little bit?" To which the Lord replies, "I could, and in fact I could out right cause them to believe, but you know if I did that for the one whom you love so dearly I must do it for all; you know I must be fair!" Ridiculous you say? Then why pray? We pray because in the theology of the heart all Christians are Calvinists.

C. H. Spurgeon, in his characteristically humorous manner, writes: "An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, 'Lord, I thank Thee I am not like those poor Calvinist. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody has done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Spirit given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not - that is the difference between me and them. That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! When they are preaching and talking slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it." (Freewill-- A Slave).

(2) The doctrine of unconditional election is subjected to the same objections as Paul's teaching on election in Rom. 9. If the apostle Paul is teaching something other than the unconditional election of sinners unto salvation, then those who listened to his teaching would not have objected that his view of election was unjust. Would anyone object, for instance, to the doctrine of election if all that Paul meant is that God elected the Church? Or that God elected nations to particular blessings? Not likely. Would anyone honestly object if what Paul is saying in Rom. 9 is that God elected those whom He foresaw would believe and persevere? Certainly not! We like these views of election!

Paul's listeners objected to his teaching for the same reason people still do today; because Paul is saying that God has chosen some and excluded the rest by an act of His sovereign choice. They object because God's choice is not based on any merit whatsoever in the one whom He chooses. It is only to this teaching - taught by Paul, Christ, and Calvinists - that any can object, "What shall we say then, is there no injustice with God?" (vs. 14), and, "Why does He still find fault? For who resist His will" (vs. 19). If our understanding of predestination does not lead to the same objections used against the apostle Paul, then our understanding of predestination is wrong. Notice carefully that the apostle Paul does not say to his objectors, "Oh, no! I did mean that God sovereignly chooses whom He wills! Goodness gracious, that wouldn't be very fair. No, what I meant to say was God looked through eternity and picked out all those He saw would be worthy of His gift, and choose them." Rather, Paul answers his objectors by saying, "On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why have you made me like this,' will he? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use" (vs. 20-21).

The objections raised against the apostle's teaching are the death blows to Arminianism. For the Arminian goes to great lengths to prove that there is nothing objectionable in how God treats His creature. For example, the Arminian says God gives sufficient grace to all, enabling all to repent and believe if they choose. Who can object to this? Yet they did object to Paul's teaching.

Nevertheless, the FLSB on Rom. 9 comments: "This verse does not mean that Jacob and his descendants were elected to eternal salvation while Esau and his descendants were elected to eternal damnation. Rather, it was an election of Jacob's descendants to be the channel of God's revelation and blessing to the world." Now imagine, if you can, someone standing up and objecting saying, "Then why does He still find fault, for who resist His will?"

The FLSB goes on to say: "Observe that according to ch. 9-11, the majority of Jacob's descendants failed to carry out their calling and thus were finally rejected by God. Furthermore, those who were not 'loved' (i.e., the Gentiles) obeyed God through faith and became 'children of the living God' (vv.25-26). Again we ask, Who could object to this? Yet those listening to Paul did object to his teaching!

The notes for verse 15 go on to say: "This verse emphasizes the freedom of God's mercy. His overflowing active compassion cannot be earned or controlled by humans, (vs. 16). He has willed to have mercy on all." And verse 18: "God intends to show mercy upon those who repent and believe on Jesus as Lord and Savior, while hardening all those who refuse to repent and choose to continue in their sins, thereby rejecting salvation in Christ. This purpose of God does not change for any person or nation." Will this view of election summon the same objection as with Paul's teaching? Will there be someone who will object to the Arminian view by saying: "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" Not very likely! Man by nature loves the Arminian view! The Arminian must show there is no objection in the way God treats His creatures. They are, therefore at a loss when it comes to verse 19. This is especially true when we consider one of the general Arminian principles, one that governs much of what they say and how they interpret Scripture. The principle is that whatever may be one's providentially ordained outward privileged, everyone has a real and true means and opportunity--which when approved upon will lead to more grace. Within the Arminian scheme, there is no objection about the injustice of God. By this, one can only assume that the Apostle Paul was not Arminian.

(3) If one rightly understands the biblical doctrine of the depravity of humanity, the question must be asked, Who then can be saved? If, as the Scriptures teach, and the WCF affirms, that "Man, by his fall and 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 that good and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or prepare thereunto" (6.3), how can anyone be saved? Some, honest enough to see this problem, outright denied the doctrine of the depravity of humanity. Others, not wishing to deny the doctrine of depravity, have invented the idea of prevenient grace. According to this view, God gives this special grace to all people, and it erases the effects of the fall. This enables one to exercise their freewill and choose to believe or reject the gospel. Obviously, this teaching is essential to Arminian theology.

Lets set aside for the moment the fact that there is no Scriptural proof at all for the doctrine of prevenient grace and assume that this prevenient grace is in fact true; and the Holy Spirit does this preparatory work on all people, enabling all, equally, to repent and believe the gospel. Why then do all not repent and believe? Why do some reject the gospel? Why is it, when two people sitting side by side hearing the same gospel message, one repents and believes while the other rejects and scoffs at the very idea?

If the answer is, "Because one, of his own freewill, chose to believe, while the other chose not to believe," we would restate the question, " But why did one of his own freewill chose to believe, while the other did not? This is the heart of the matter between our Arminian brothers and Calvinists. Do some believe because they are more intelligent? Or more gullible? Do some believe because they have a propensity toward things of a religious nature? Maybe because of their upbringing? Do some believe or not believe because of the way the gospel was presented?

The assertion that one believes, while another does not, is because one simply chooses to do so--and this is the only reason-- displays great ignorance. As stated before, choices are not made in a vacuum. There is a myriad of internal and external factors shaping how we think and the choices we make. The will is not some freeborn sovereign entity, able to exercise itself despite any external and internal factors. So if the Holy Spirit does this prevenient work on all, then these external and internal factors will be what influences the choice made, whether to believe or to reject the gospel.

However, since it is our Sovereign God who ordains all external and internal factors of our lives, which are part of and determine the decisions we make, in the final analysis, nothing is accomplished by denying the biblical doctrine of unconditional election. Either way, it remains God's choice, as the apostle Paul said: "And what do you have that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4.7). Therefore, Calvinists reject the Arminian teaching of special grace since it is not found in the Scriptures (in fact Scripture states just the opposite in Rom. 9.15-16) and ultimately, it does not solve anything for the Arminian since it raises more problems than it legitimately answers.

(4) "If God foreordains by His eternal purpose all things that come to pass, and if among the things that come to pass are the salvation of some men and the loss of others, then it follows with inevitable logic that He foreordains both of these things." (J. Machen, The Christian View of Man, P.57).

(5) Lastly, the doctrine of unconditional election is not a doctrine one would be inclined to invent. What one would be incline to invent are those arguments advanced against the doctrine of unconditional election. The doctrine of unconditional election is divine revealed truth, plainly and clearly set forth in the Word of God.

SCRIPTURAL PROOF FOR UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

Our final appeal is the Scripture themselves. We would ask the reader only to consider one thing: How much exegetical gymnastics must you use to have the Scriptures say other then the plain and clear meaning.

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might become the first born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified, and whom He justified, these He also glorified" (Rom. 8.29).

The key word in this passage is "foreknew." Foreknew is two Greek words, pro , which means before, and ginosko , meaning to know. Proginosko can mean simply to know before hand, and is used in this sense often in Scripture. However, ginosko also has a deeper meaning. In Hosea, for example, God says of Israel: "I did know thee in the wilderness, in the land of great drought" (13.5 KJV). God is not merely saying that He had a knowledge of them. In Jeremiah God says to the Prophet, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" (1.5). Again, God is not merely pointing to the fact that He is omnipresent. God was speaking about the special relationship that He had with Jeremiah before God actually formed Him in his mother's womb!

Another example is Amos 3.2: "You only have I known of all the families of the earth . . . " (KJV). God is speaking of the nation Israel. God is not saying that He is unaware of other people on the earth. The sense is that God had an intimate personal relationship with Israel alone. In the New Testament, Jesus says of those who practice lawlessness, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in your name perform miracles?' And I will declare to them, I never knew you; Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness' " (Mt. 7.23). Obviously Jesus is not saying that He had no knowledge of these people, but that these people did not belong to Him. (See also 1 Cor. 8.3; Gal. 4.9; 2 Tm. 2.19; 1 Jn. 3.1).

Ginosko , when used of God as the subject, sometimes means that God "recognize someone as belonging to Him, choose, almost = elect." ( Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich 2 ed. P. 161d). Ginosko clearly sometimes has a deeper meaning than mere knowledge. Often it is used synonymously with love, to know in an intimate and personal manner, or to choose. Proginosko can also have the meaning to love beforehand, to forelove. The context, therefore must determine which meaning we are to adopt, whether merely to know something in advance, or to love beforehand, to forelove.

In Rom. 8.29 foreknew cannot merely mean God had prior knowledge of people since foreknowledge, as used here by Paul, differentiates between those who have been predestined to become conformed to the image of Christ, called, justified, and glorified. In other words, foreknew differentiates between those who are saved and those who are not. If foreknew only meant that God had prior knowledge of people this would be true of all people, saved or lost. The word foreknew, in the context here, differentiates between the lost and the saved. This differentiation must either be in the meaning of the word itself, or supplied by the interpreter. If the element that differentiates between the lost and saved is present in the word then the interpreter should supply nothing.

Arminians believe that the word merely means to know beforehand. Therefore, they supply the differentiation required by the context of this passage. They say that either God foreknew the plan, or God foreknew the Church, or, more commonly, that God foreknew who would believe and persevere to the end, and He elected these.

Since, however, proginosko can also mean to love beforehand, even to choose beforehand - which differentiates between the saved and the lost -, to import an artificial cause differentiating the saved and lost is totally unjustified. Nevertheless, despite this evidence Arminians insist that it be either the plan of salvation that God foreknew, or the church, or God foreknew those who would believe and persevere and elected these.

We will not repeat what has already been said concerning these Arminian views except to say that Paul does not say "For what He foreknew," but "Whom He foreknew." He does not say, "The plan He foreknew," or "The church He foreknew," much less, "faith and perseverance He foreknew." Those whom God foreknows are those whom He called according to His purpose (Rom. 8.28).

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared before hand, that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2.8-10).

Some argue that the phrase "and that not of yourselves, it is a gift from God" refers to salvation, not faith. However, if this phrase refers to salvation then Paul is saying grace saves us, meaning it is a gift, but this gift is not of ourselves, it is a gift from God! This is redundant. Besides, according to Scripture, faith is a gift from God in Phil. 1.29; 2 Pet. 1.1; 1 Cor. 4.7.

"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" (Jn. 10.26-27).

When examining this verse in light of verses 11-16 the only proper interpretation is that the sheep represent God's elect, not simply believers. If sheep meant simply believers then Jesus is saying that the reason they do not believe is that they are not believers. Jesus does not say that these Jews do not believe and therefore are not His sheep. What Jesus said is they do not believe because they are not His sheep; they are not His elect, therefore, they do not believe. Although many try to twist what Jesus so clearly teaches here, the conclusion is inevitable, Calvinism did not originate with John Calvin!

"Who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ from all eternity" (2 Tm. 1.9).

Notice that salvation is according to God's purpose, and that the working out of His purpose is not according to our works. Obviously, this means God did not elect anyone because of what He saw they would do in the future, otherwise God would elect not according to His purpose, but according to our works.

"For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory" (2 Tm. 2.10).

The doctrine of unconditional election does not preclude the equally biblical truth of our responsibility. Although the apostle Paul believed and taught that God efficaciously chose some unto salvation, he nevertheless saw the responsibility of preaching the gospel, even to the point of personal suffering and, finally, state execution.

"But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, just as it is written, 'Let him who boast, boast in the Lord' " (1 Cor. 1.30-31).

If faith and repentance are not gifts, and if we are elected unto salvation because of foreseen faith and perseverance, then we are in Christ not by God's doing, but by our doing.

"For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? (1 Cor. 4.7)

The comments in the FLSB on this verse are amazing: "The basis for Christian humility is to realize that the native or spiritual gifts that we possess are from God and thus furnish no basis for superiority, status, or pride." We could not agree more! In fact, we must ask the question, which is faith, a native endowment or gift? Clearly all have not faith (2 Thess. 3.2), therefore, it must be one or the other! And whether it is a native endowment or gift, both are from God. Yet despite what the commentator has said, he goes on to say: "All that we have and all that we become are made possible by God and others". But where does Paul say that it is only made possible? And if it is only made possible then the actually attaining of these gifts must be in the hands of the individual. However, that obviously still leaves room for boasting, and completely nullifies the previous comment concerning Christian humility and contradicts what the apostle Paul often said. "Let him who boast, boast in the Lord" (1 Cor. 1.31).

What the apostle Paul is concern with here is that everything, natural or gracious, which distinguishes one from another, is--not made possible--from God, consequently none can glory in themselves.

"For He was foreknown (GK. proginosko ) before the foundation of the World" (1 Pet. 1.20). In this context, foreknown means far more than to know before hand, since Peter cannot merely be stating the obvious fact that God has a previous knowledge of Christ.

"But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth." (2 Thess. 2.13)

Election is eternal, "from the beginning," it is unto salvation, "for salvation," and the order is specific: "through sanctification by the Spirit," then belief in the truth. It is therefore impossible for election to be based on foreseen faith. Paul tells us that faith is the result of election.

We see, again, that God's choice of some to salvation does not negate human responsibility. Salvation depends upon "belief in the truth." In other words, God not only predetermines the end, He also predetermines the means to cause this end. God has chosen some to be saved, but the means He has chosen to accomplish this plan is belief in the truth through the preaching of the gospel. The objection, therefore, that the doctrine of unconditional election makes the gospel unnecessary by removing any valid reason to preach the gospel, is unjustified.

"All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (Jn. 6.37).

Note three points: (1) There is a difinite number. It will not increase, nor decrease: "All that." (2) God election is invincible: "Shall come to Me." (3) Salvation is offered to all: "And the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day . . . For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him by the Father" (Jn. 6.44, 65).

The context of this passage is the manifestation of unbelief by those who Christ gave every encouragement to believe. The statement of the Lord proves this, "But I said to you, that you have seen Me, yet you do not believe" (vs. 36). The reason for their unbelief is that God did not grant to them to believe.

"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom. 9.16).

When the Scriptures say that "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" (vs. 15) it can only mean that God is not bound to show mercy to any, and showing mercy to anyone is by His sovereign grace; consequently, election cannot be the result of foreseen works. Note also that Paul uses the word "man" in verse 16, not nation.

"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then "Why then does He still find fault? For who resist His will?" On the contrary. who are you O man who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," Will it? Or does the potter have right over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power know, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He called . . . (Rom. 9.22-24).

In Rom. 9-11 Paul is defending the doctrine of justification by faith, the theme of his letter, from the Jews. The Jews would argue that if Paul's doctrine is true, that one is made right with God by grace through faith, then the covenant with Abraham has failed (vs. 6). The Apostle's answer to this objection is simply that the covenant did not include all of Abraham's lineage for "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; neither are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants" (Rom. 9.6-7).

This Paul proves by showing that from the beginning God excluded one of Abraham's sons and chose the other, "Through Isaac your descendants will be named (vs. 8). Next Paul shows how although both parents where Abraham's descendants, when Rebekah conceived twins, both Abraham's descendants, one was by God's will and purpose excluded from the covenant, "For though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good our bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, God said to her, "The older shall serve the younger," just as it is written, " Jacob I have loved, but Esau I hated." This proves that Paul, in proving his doctrine, uses not nations but individuals. It is an error therefore to say that the only purpose Paul has is to show that God elects nationally some to particular blessings.

Paul's use of personal pronouns further proves this. Never does Paul use words that describe people as a group nationally, but he uses words such as, "one man" (vs. 10), "her" (vs. 12), "whom" (vs. 15, 19; note that it does not say, "on what nation He desires"), "man" (vs. 16), "you" (vs. 17, 19, 20), "me" (vs. 20), and in verse 24 Paul uses "us" to describe believers. And we would be pointing the obvious by saying that Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Moses, the Pharaoh, are individuals, some of whom have receives blessings from God, and others hardening. In verse 19, it is not a group or nation who objects to the teaching of the apostle Paul, but an individual. Finally, Rom. 9.24 proves that the apostle Paul is not referring to the election of nations, but individuals: "Even us, whom He called, not from among Jews only, but also from Gentiles." Paul, in Romans 9, is not speaking of elect nations, but of individuals who have been called, both Jew and Gentile.

It is quite true that the texts Paul quotes do not refer to individuals, but to nations. This I do not dispute. Nevertheless, keep in mind that Paul's illustrations suites perfectly well what He wants to prove, namely, that God is free to do as He sees fit with His creation. God may show mercy to one and not another.

Arminians argue that this is not the context these verses Paul quotes are from. This to I agree; however, to insist that these verses quoted by Paul cannot have any meaning other then that of the original context is nonsense. Thornwell, in arguing against the Arminian Macknight, had this to say:
"They settle what they suppose to be the meaning of the passage in the Old Testament, and then determine that it cannot be used in any other sense in the New. Let the principle be tested by a reference to Matt. 2.15, where Joseph is said to have departed into Egypt, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." This last clause is a quotation from Hosea 11.1, where it has a manifest allusion to the children of Israel as a people or nation: "When Israel was a child I loved him, and called my son of Egypt." Upon the principle of interpretation on which Macknight proceeds the 15th verse of the second Chapter of Matthew cannot refer to the Lord Jesus Christ, because the passage in Hosea will not bear that meaning; but every one sees from the context that it must and does refer to Christ, no matter what may be the meaning in the original passage in the Prophet. And so, if the scope and drift of the Epistle to the Romans show that Paul is discussing the question of personal election to eternal life, no matter what may be the meaning of the original passages in Genesis and Exodus, the Apostle applies them to the subject before him . . . I can easily conceive that Paul might have applied the quotations from the Old Testament to the case of personal election, merely because they contain the principle, and the whole principle, upon which personal election depends. It is obvious, then, that even upon the supposition that the passages from Genesis and Exodus are correctly interpreted, it is not proved that Paul is not speaking in the ninth of Romans of personal election to eternal life. The point which Paul has in hand must be gathered, not from the writings of Moses, but from the scope and design of his own Epistle, and it shows how hardly pressed the Arminians are when they overlook one of the simplest and most obvious rules of interpretation in order to avoid the truths which Paul so clearly teaches." (Vol. 2, p. 131-132).

"But what is the divine response to him? "I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal. In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice" (Rom. 11.4-5).

In the Greek the word "kept" means, "to cause to be left over, to reserve, to leave remaining." Paul is not merely saying that seven thousand men have not bowed the knee to Baal, for that would be utterly useless to his argument, and such an interpretation is in obvious conflict with the overall context (vs 2). What Paul is apparently saying is God kept for Himself seven thousand men therefore they have not worshiped Baal. In this same manner, Paul goes on to say, there is at this present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.

"What then? That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were harden;" (Rom. 11.7).

"Knowing, brethren, His choice of you; for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and full conviction" (1 Thess. 1. 4-5).

Paul preached the gospel throughout Thessalonica, but not everyone believed. Yet to those who did believe, Paul writes explaining why they believed. It was not because of Paul's skill as a preacher of the gospel, nor was it that they just "decided for Jesus," but because of the supernatural work of God.

"For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5.9).

"For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. 1.29).

 

 

Calvinism As An Evangelizing Force

 N. S. McFetridge

In this chapter our inquiry will be as to the evangelizing force of Calvinism. Has Calvinism, as compared with other systems of religious doctrine, shown itself to have been a power in the evangelization of the world? This is the most important question connected with any system of belief. All other questions are, in every Christian's opinion, subordinate to this. To save sinners and convert the world to a practical godliness must be the chief, the first and last, aim of every system of religion. If it does not respond to this, it must be set aside, however popular it may be.

The question, then, before us now is, to whether the system of doctrines called Calvinism is the most acceptable and popular with the world, but whether it is eminently adapted to the conversion of sinners and the edification of believers.

In determining this I shall proceed, as in the preceding chapters, according to the law, "The tree is known by its fruit."

We may, however, premise, on the ground of the doctrines included in this system, that it is certainly most favorable to the spread of Christianity. Its doctrines are all taken directly from the Scriptures. The word of God is its only infallible rule of faith and practice. Even its doctrine of predestination, or election, which most men dislike, but which all Christians practically believe and teach, is granted by some of its bitterest opponents to be a transcript of the teachings of the New Testament.

The historian Froude says: "If Arminianism most commends itself to our feelings, Calvinism is nearer to the facts, however harsh and forbidding those facts may seem." (1). And Archbishop Whately says the objections against it "are objections against the facts of the case." So Spinoza and John Stuart Mill and Buckle, and all the materialistic and metaphysical philosophers, "can find," says an eminent authority, "no better account of the situation of man than in the illustrations of St. Paul; 'Hath not the potter power over the clay, to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?'" There never has been, and it is doubtful if there ever can be, an Arminian philosophy. The facts of life are against it; and no man would attempt to found a philosophy on feeling against fact.

Arminian theologians thought they had discovered the starting-point for a systematic philosophy and theology in the doctrine of "free-will;" but even that was swept away from them by the logic of Jonathan Edwards, and it has continued to be swept farther and farther away by Buckle and Mill and all the great philosophers. Hence it comes that to this day, there is not a logical and systematic body of Arminian divinity. It has as in the Methodist Church, a brief and informal creed in some twenty-five articles, but it has neither a Confession of Faith nor a complete and logical system of doctrine. (2) To make such a system it must overthrow the philosophy of the world and the facts of human experience; and it is not likely to do that very soon.

Now, the thought is, must not a theology which agrees with the facts of the case, which recognizes the actual condition of man and his relations to God, be more favorable to man's salvation than one which ignores the facts?

This is confirmed by the nature of the particular doctrines involved. We freely agree with Froude and Macaulay that Arminianism, in one aspect of it, is "more agreeable to the feelings" and "more popular" with the natural heart, as that which exalts man in his own sight is always more agreeable to him than that which abases him. Arminianism, in denying the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer, in setting him on his own works of righteousness, and in promising him such perfection in this life as that there is no more sin left in him -- or, in the words of John Wesley, a "free, full and present salvation from all the guilt, all the power and all the in-being of sin" (3) -- lays the foundation for the notions of works of supererogation, and that the believer, while in a state of grace, cannot commit sin. It thus powerfully ministers to human pride and self-glorification. Calvinism, on the other hand, by imputing Christ's righteousness to the believer, and making the sinner utterly and absolutely dependent on Christ for his salvation, cuts away all occasion for boasting and lays him low at the foot of the cross. Hence it cannot be so agreeable to the feelings of our carnal heart. But may it not be more salutary, nevertheless? 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.

The centre doctrine of Calvinism, as an evangelistic power, is that which Luther called "the article of a standing or a falling Church" -- "justification by faith alone, in the righteousness of Christ alone." And is not that the doctrine of the gospel? Where does the Holy Spirit ascribe the merit of any part of salvation to the sinner?

But aside from that question, which it is not my purpose here to argue, would not reason dictate that that doctrine is most conducive to salvation which makes most of sin and most of grace?

Rowland Hill once said that "the devil makes little of sin, that he may retain the sinner." It is evident at once that the man who considers himself in greatest danger will make the greatest efforts to escape. If I feel that I am only slightly indisposed, I shall not experience much anxiety, but if I am conscious that my disease is dangerous, I will lose no time in having it attended to. So if I feel, according to the Arminianism, that my salvation is a matter which I can settle myself at any moment, even in the last gasp of dissolution, I shall be prone to take my time and ease in deciding it; but if, according to Calvinism, I feel that I am dependent upon God for it, whose pleasure, and not my own, I am to consult, I will naturally give more earnest heed to it.

Thus reason brings forward her vindication of Calvinism against the allegation that it is not favorable to the pursuit of salvation.

But perhaps some one may reply, "Has not the Methodist Church been more successful in her efforts to evangelize the world than any Calvinistic Church?" In answer I would say that I will give way to no one in my high estimate of that Church's piety and zeal and progress. I thank God, with all my heart, for what she has done, and I pray that she may never flag in her energy and success in winning souls to Jesus Christ. I admire her profoundly, and her noble army of men and women enlisted in the Master's service. May she ever go on, conquering and to conquer, until we all meet as one on the great day of the triumph of the Lamb!

But bear in mind that the aggressive Church has no well-defined system of doctrine, and that her Arminianism is of a very mild type, coming nowhere near that of High-Churchism or Roman Catholicism. Wherein lie the elements of her power and progress? I do not believe, and I am confident it cannot be shown, that they lie in her Arminianism or in the doctrines common to all the Christian churches, such as sin, Justification, regeneration and holiness, and in her admirable system of inerrancy, by which she keeps all her stations manned and sends forward fresh men to every new field. Let her preach Arminianism strictly and logically, and she will soon lose her aggressiveness, or become another institution than an evangelical Church of Christ.

Furthermore, Arminianism in the Methodist Church is but a century old. It has never passed through the years or the confusions through which Calvinism has passed. Will it continue in the ages to come to be the diffusive power which it has been for these years past? Of this I am persuaded, looking at the history and workings of religious opinions in the past: that the Church will be constrained in time to put forth a systematic and logical Confession of Faith, (4) out of which she will either drop all peculiarly Arminian doctrines, and so secure her permanency, or in which she will proclaim them, and by that means will inject the poison of death, as an evangelizing body, into her system. A thorough Arminianism and a practical evangelism have never yet remained long in loving harmony. Look at the history of doctrines as illustrated in the history of the Church of Rome, and you will see this clearly attested. Arminianism, in its principles, had been in operation in that Church for centuries when the Reformation broke forth, and what evangelistic work had it done? It had indeed converted almost the entire world, but to what had it converted it? It had formed and established the largest and most powerful Church which the world has ever seen, but what had it done for the salvation of human bodies and souls? It had made Romanists, but it had not made Christians equally as numerous. Was it not the very principles of the Calvinistic theology which flashed light upon the thick darkness, and threw fire into the corrupt mass, and lifted up the banner of the cross, so long trodden under a debased hierarchy, and revived the ancient faith of the Church, and established the great Protestant and evangelical denominations of Christians? Who but Calvinists -- or, as formerly called, Augustinians -- were the forerunners of the Reformers? Such was Wycliffe, "the morning star of the Reformation;" such was John of Goch and John of Wesalia and John of Wessel, "the light of the world;" and Savonorola of Florence, who thundered with such terrible vehemence against the sins of the clergy and people, who refused a cardinal's hat for his silence, saying, "he wished no red hat, but one reddened with his own blood, the hat given to the saints" -- who even demanded the removal of the pope, and, scorning all presents and promises and honors on condition of "holding his tongue," gave his life for the holy cause -- another victim of priestly profligacy and bloodthirstiness. Every great luminary which in the Church immediately preceded the greater lights of the Reformation was in principle a Calvinist. Such also were the great national Reformers, as Luther of Germany, Zwingle of Switzerland, Calvin of France, Crammer of England, and Knox of Scotland. "Although each movement was self-originated, and different from the others in many permanent characteristics," (5) it was thoroughly Calvinistic. These men were driven to this theological belief, not by their peculiar intellectual endowments, but from their study of the word of God and the moral necessities of the Church and the world. They felt that half measures were useless -- that it was worse than folly to seek to unite a system of saving works with a system of saving faith. So "Calvinism in its sharp and logical structure, in its moral earnestness, in its demand for the reformation of ecclesiastical abuses, found a response in the consciences of good men." (6) It was it which swept, like a prairie-fire, over the Continent, devouring the fabric of works of righteousness. He who is most familiar with the history of those times will most readily agree with the startling statement of Dr. Cunningham (successor to Dr. Chalmers), that, "next to Paul, John Calvin has done most for the world."

So thoroughly was the Reformed world Calvinistic three hundred years ago that it was almost entirely Presbyterian. (7) The French Protestant Church was as rigidly Presbyterian as the Scotch Church. "There are many acts of her synod," says the late Dr. Charles Hodge, "which would make modern ears tingle, and which prove that American Presbyterianism, in its strictest forms, is a sucking dove compared to that of the immediate descendants of the Reformers." (8)

There was, of course, as there always has been, greater diversity in the matters of church government than in the doctrines of faith; yet even in these there was an almost unanimous agreement that the presbyterial was the form of government most in accord with the teachings of Scripture. Dr. John Reynolds, who was in his day regarded as perhaps the most learned man in the Church of England, said, in answer to Brancroft, chaplain to the archbishop, who had broached what was then called "the novelty" that the bishops are a distinct order superior to the ordinary clergymen, "All who have for five hundred years last past endeavored the reformation of the Church have taught that all pastors, whether they be called bishops or priests, are invested with equal authority and power; as, first, the Waldenses, next Marsilius Patavianus then Wycliffe and his scholars, afterward Huss and the Hussites, and, last of all, Luther, Calvin, Brentius, Bullinger and Musculus. Among ourselves we have bishops, the queen's professors of divinity in our universities and other learned men consenting therein, as Bradford, Lambert, Jewel, Pilkington, etc. But why do I speak of particular persons? It is the common judgment of the Reformed churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Low Countries and our own." (9)

If we now turn to the fruits of Calvinism in the form of devoted Christians and in the number of churches established, we shall see that it has been the most powerful evangelistic system of religious belief in the world. Consider with what amazing rapidity it spread over Europe, converting thousands upon thousands to a living Christianity. In about twenty-five years from the time when Calvin began his work there were two thousand places of Calvinistic worship, with almost half a million of worshippers, in France alone. When Ambrose Willie, a man who had studied theology at the feet of Calvin in Geneva, preached at Ernonville Bridge, near Tournay, in 1556, twenty thousand people assembled to hear him. Peter Gabriel had also for an audience in the same year, near Haarlem, "tens of thousands;" and we can judge of the theological character of this sermon from his text, which was, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of your self; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast; for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (10)

           

These are but two of the many examples of the intense awakening produced by the earnest preaching of the Calvinistic doctrines. So great were the effects that in three years after this tie a General Synod was held in Paris, at which a Confession of Faith was adopted. Two years after the meeting of the Synod -- that is in 1561 -- the Calvinists numbered one-fourth of the entire French population. (11) And in less than half a century 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. Smiles, in his Huguenots in France, (12) says: "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." Certain it is that the nation would have had a different history from that which she has had. But it is interesting to mark how rapidly Calvin's opinions had spread in his native land, and to note the evangelistic effect of that system of doctrine which bears his name. Its marvelous evangelizing power lies no doubt in its scriptural thought and phraseology, and its intense spirituality and lofty enthusiasm and logical strength. Luther, though Calvinistic in his doctrinal beliefs, weakened his system by his concessions to princes and ceremonies. He "hesitated," says the historian Bancroft, (13) "to deny the real presence, and was indifferent to the observance of external ceremonies. Calvin, with sterner dialectics, sanctioned by the influence of the purest life and by his power as the ablest writer of his age, attacked the Roman doctrine respecting communion, and esteemed as a commemoration a rite which the Catholics revered as a sacrifice. Luther acknowledged princes as his protectors, and in the ceremonies of worship favored magnificence as an aid to devotion; Calvin was the guide of Swiss republics, and avoided, in their churches, all appeals to the senses as a crime against religion... Luther permitted the cross and taper, pictures and images, as things of indifference. Calvin demanded a spiritual worship in its utmost purity." Hence it was that Calvinism, by bringing the truth directly to bear upon the mind and heart, made its greater and more permanent conquests, and subjected itself to the fiercer opposition and persecution of Romanism.

"The Lutheran Reformation," says Dyer in his History of Modern Europe, (14) "traveled but little out of Germany and the neighboring Scandinavian kingdoms; while Calvinism obtained a European character, and was adopted in all the countries that adopted a reformation from without, as France, as the Netherlands, Scotland, even England; for the early English Reformation under Edward VI. was Calvinistic, and Calvin was incontestably the father of our Puritans and dissenters. Thus, under his rule, Geneva may be said to have become the capital of European Reform."

A similar testimony is that of Francis de Sales, who in one of his letters to the duke of Savoy urged 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 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." (15)

God had ordered it that Geneva, so accessible to all the nations of Western Europe, should be the home of . Calvin, from which he could most efficiently carry on his work of enlightenment and civilization. And so important to the cause of Protestantism had that city become that upon it, in the opinion of Francis de Sales, the whole cause depended.

Almost marvelous indeed was the rapid spread of the doctrines of Calvinism. Dyer says: (16) "Calvinism, still more inimical to Rome than the doctrines of Luther, had, from Geneva, its centre and stronghold, spread itself in all directions in Western Europe. In the neighboring provinces of Germany it had in a great degree supplanted Lutheranism, and had even penetrated into Hungary and Poland; it was predominant in Scotland, and had leavened the doctrines of the English Church ... The pope could reckon only upon Spain and Italy as sound and secure, with a few islands and the Venetian provinces in Dalmatia and Greece... Its converts belonged chiefly (in France) to the higher ranks, including many of the clergy, monks, nuns, and even bishops; and the Catholic churches seemed almost deserted, except by the lower classes."

From this brief survey we are enabled to perceive something of the wonderful evangelizing force of this system of belief. It was the only system able to cope with the great powers of the Romish Church, and over-throw them; and for two centuries it was accepted in all Protestant countries as the final account of the relations between man and his Maker. (17) In fact, there is no other system which has displayed so powerful an evangelizing force as Calvinism. This becomes still more manifest in the history of the great revivals with which the Christian Church has been blessed.

Many are accustomed to think that revivals belong particularly to the Methodist Church, whereas, in fact, that Church has never yet inaugurated a great national or far-spreading revival. Her revivals are marked with localism; they are connected with particular churches, and do not make a deep, abiding and general impression on society. The first great Christian revival occurred under the preaching of Peter in Jerusalem, who employed such language in his discourse or discourses as this: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." That is Calvinism rigid enough. Passing over the greatest revival of modern times, the Reformation, which, as all know, was under the preaching of Calvinism, we come to our own land. The era of revivals in this country is usually reckoned from the year 1792, but in 1740 there was a marked revival under the preaching of the Rev. Jonathan Dickinson, a Presbyterian clergyman. It was about this time also that George Whitefield, called in his day "the great Methodist," a clergyman of the Church of England and an uncompromising Calvinist, was startling the ungodly in Philadelphia. It is recorded that he threw "a horrid gloom" over this fashionable and worldly old town, "and put a stop to the dancing schools, assemblies and every pleasant thing." Strange, indeed, that dissipation and vanity are "pleasant things," while holiness and salvation from hell are disagreeable things! But this great man, in company with Gilbert Tennent, a Presbyterian clergyman, of whom Whitefield said, "He is a son of thunder," and "hypocrites must either soon be converted or enraged at his preaching," was arousing multitudes by his fiery, impassioned, consecrated eloquence.

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. 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." (18) 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 regard 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. (19) Neither the mechanism nor the force which gave rise to it originated with Wesley. (20) 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." (21) The sainted Toplady said of the time, "Arminianism is the great religious evil of this age and country. It has more or less infected every Protestant denomination amongst us, and bids fair for leaving us, in a short time, not so much as the very profession of godliness... We have generally forsaken the principles of the Reformation, and 'Ichabod,' the glory is departed, has been written on most of our pulpits and church-doors ever since."

It was Calvinism, and not Arminianism, which originated (so far as any system of doctrines 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.

In all that awakening in this country it was such Calvinists as Whitefield, Tennent, Edwards, Brainerd, and, at a later day, Nettleton and Griffin, who were the chief actors. "The Great Revival of 1800," as it is called, began toward the close of the last century and continued for a generation into this. During that time it was one series of awakenings. It spread far and wide, refreshing and multiplying the churches. It was the beginning of all those great religious movements for which our century is so noted. The doctrines which were employed to bring it about were those, as a recent writer remarks, "which are commonly distinguished as Calvinistic." (22) "The work," says the another, "was begun and carried on in this country under the preaching and influence of the doctrines contained in the Confession of Faith of the Presybeterian Church." (23) "It is wonderful how the holy influence of Jonathan Edwards, David Brainerd and others of that day is to be traced at the root of the revival and missionary efforts of all sects and lands." (24)

The revival which began in New England, and which was the greatest that had, until that time, been witnessed in the American colonies, resulted, under the blessing of God, from a series of doctrinal sermons preached by Jonathan Edwards.

But I cannot continue to specify instances. Let it be borne in mind that the men who have awakened the consciences and swayed the masses, and brought the multitudes to the feet of Jesus, not in a temporary excitement, but in a perpetual covenant, have been such Calvinists as Ambrose Wilde, and John Knox, and Thomas Chalmers, and George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards, and Griffin, Nettleton, Moody, and, last but not least, Spurgeon.

Calvinism may be unpopular in some quarters. But what of that? It cannot be more unpopular than the doctrines of sin and grace as revealed in the New Testament. But much of its unpopularity is due to the fact of its not being understood. Let it be examined without passion, let it be studied in its relations and logical consistency, and it will be seen to be at least a correct transcript of the teachings of the Scriptures, of the laws of Nature and of the facts of human life. If the faith and piety of the Church be weak today, it is, I am convinced, in a great measure because of the lack of a full, clear, definite knowledge and promulgation of these doctrines. The Church has been having a reign of candyism; she has been feeding on pap sweetened with treacle, until she has become disordered and weakly. Give her a more clearly-defined and a more firmly grasped faith, and she will lift herself up in her glorious might before the world. All history and experience prove the correctness of Carlyle's saying, that "At all turns a man who will do faithfully needs to believe firmly." It is this, I believe, that the Church needs today more than any other thing--- not "rain-doctors," not religious "diviners," wandering to and fro, rejoicing in having no dogmatic opinions and no theological preferences; no, it is not these religious ear-ticklers that are needed -- although they may be wanted somewhere -- but, as history teaches us, clear and accurate views of the great fundamental doctrines of sin and grace. First make the tree good, and the fruit will be good. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. It is not for us to trifle with these matters. Our time here is but for a moment, and our eternity depends on the course we take. Should we not, then, seek to know the truth, and strive, at any cost, to buy it, and sell it not?

By all the terrors of an endless death, as by all the glories of an endless life, we are called and pressed and urged to know the truth and follow it unto the end. And this joy we have, in and over all as the presence of a divine radiance, "that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." So grant thou Holy Spirit of God, to begin the work in every one of us; and to thee, with the Father and the Son, shall be all the praise and the glory for ever Amen.

Endnotes

1 Calvinism, p. 6.
2 Humphrey's Our Theology, p. 68, etc.
3 Gladstone's Life of Whitefield, p. 199.
4 I do not forget, and do not disparage, Richard Watson's
Theological Institutes. 5 Dr. Hodge.
6 Dr. Fisher, Hist. Ref.
7 Dr. Breed's Presbyterianism Three Hundred Years Ago.
8 Const. Hist.
9. Breed's Presbyterianism Three Hundred Years Ago, p. 24, 25.
10 Eph. 2:8-10.
11 Fisher, Hist. Ref.
12 P. 100.
13 Hist. U.S., I. pp. 277, 278.
14 Vol. 11. p. 7.
15 "Vie de Ste. Francois de Sates, par son neveu, p. 120
16 Hist. Mod. Europe, vol. 2. pp. 136, 392.
17 Froude, Calvinism, p. 4.
18 Lecky, Hist. England, Eighteenth Century, vol. 2. p. 612.
19 Bampton Lectures, for 1812.
20 Wedgewood's Life of John Wesley, p. 157.
21 Bampton Lectures, for 1812. 22 Speer's Great Revival of 1800, p. 52.
23 Dr. Smil. Ralston's Letters
24 Speer's Great Revival. p. 112.

From Chapter 4 of Calvinism In History.

Scanned and edited by Michael Bremmer

 

 

Thanks.

 

HBTN

 

Mike Abendroth

www.nocompromiseradio.com

 

www.bbcchurch.org

 

Ephesians 3:21 auvtw/| h` do,xa evn th/| evkklhsi,a|

Thomas Watson, "[Jesus] alone is the Prince of Preachers.  He alone is the best of expositors."