L. S. Chafer on the Sovereignty of God

Chafer – vol 1 prelude

I. The Divine Program of the Ages

While some phases of the divine program of the ages belong properly to Eschatology, and these will be noticed later under that heading, the subject exceeds the boundaries of Eschatology, and being, as it is, so vast, must be recognized as fundamental to the right understanding of the works of God in relation to this world.

The dispensational study of the Bible consists in the identification of certain well-defined time-periods which are divinely indicated, together with the revealed purpose of God relative to each. A recognition of the divinely indicated distinctions as to time-periods and the messages belonging to each is the very foundation of a science such as Systematic Theology, which proposes to discover and exhibit the truth relative to the works of God. No accounting is possible as to the extent of error which is prevalent because of the careless reading into one dispensation or age of that which belongs to another.

That God has a program of the ages is disclosed in many passages (cf. Deut. 30:1–10; Dan. 2:31–45; 7:1–28; 9:24–27; Hos. 3:4, 5; Matt. 23:37–25:46; Acts 15:13–18; Rom. 11:13–29; 2 Thess. 2:1–12; Rev. 2:1–22:21). Likewise, there are well-defined periods of time related to the divine purpose. The Apostle Paul writes of the period between Adam and Moses (Rom. 5:14); John speaks of the law as given by Moses, but of grace and truth as coming by Christ (John 1:17). Christ also speaks of “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24), which are evidently to be distinguished from Jewish “times and seasons” (Acts 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:1). Likewise, He spoke of a hitherto unannounced period between His two advents and indicated its distinctive features (Matt. 13:1–51), and predicted a yet future time of “great tribulation” and defined its character (Matt. 24:9–31). There are “last days” for Israel (Isa. 2:1–5) as well as “last days” for the Church (2 Tim. 3:1–5). The Apostle John anticipates a period of one thousand years and relates this to the reign of Christ, at which time the Church, His Bride, will reign with Him (Rev. 20:1–6). That Christ will sit on the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob forever is declared by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:31–33), and that there will be an ever abiding new heaven and new earth is as clearly revealed (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1). In Hebrews 1:1, 2 a sharp contrast is drawn between “time past” when God spoke to the fathers by the prophets and “these last days” when He is speaking unto us by His Son. Similarly, it is clearly disclosed that there are ages past (Eph. 3:5; Col. 1:26), the present age (Rom. 12:2; Gal. 1:4), and the age, or ages, to come (Eph. 2:7; Heb. 6:5; note Eph. 1:10, where the future age is termed the dispensation—οἰκονμία—of the fullness—πλήρωμα—of times—καιρός).

The use of αἰῶνας in Hebrews. 1:2 and 11:3 with its almost universal reference to time, either bounded or unbounded, is of particular significance as bearing on the divine arrangements of time-periods. The former with ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας and the latter with κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας have been much disputed. Dean Alford states: “The main classes of interpreters are two. (1) Those who see in the word its ordinary meaning of ‘an age of time’: (2) those who do not recognize such meaning, but suppose it to have been merged in that of ‘the world,’ or ‘the worlds.’ To (1) belong the Greek Fathers; and some others. On the other hand, (2) is the view of the majority of Commentators” (N.T. for English Readers, Vol. II, Part II, p. 599). In several passages, including the two in question, Vincent declares αἰῶνας to refer to “the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world.” The word, he states, “means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come” (Word Studies, Vol. IV, p. 59).

Considering the accepted meaning of αἰῶνας, the natural interpretation of the passage in question is that God did by Christ arrange the successive periods, far beyond καιρός within χρόνος extending indeed to things eternal or from everlasting to everlasting. This interpretation held, according to Alford, by the Greek Fathers, though not free from difficulties, is of more than passing import to those who do discern the fact, force, and fruition of God’s time-periods.

The student of the Scriptures who is devoted to his task will discover that God’s great time-periods, characterized as they are by specific divine purposes, fall into a well-defined order, moving on with infinite certainty to the glorious completion which God has decreed. There is an order to the creative days. The age of the patriarchs is followed by the age of the judges, and that age, in turn, is followed by the age of the kings. The “times of the Gentiles,” which terminate the age of the kings, continue to the Day of Jehovah, which extended period is followed by the Day of God, characterized as it is by the new heavens and the new earth which are not only to be holy to an infinite degree but are to abide forever.

God’s program is as important to the theologian as the blueprint to the builder or the chart to the mariner. Without the knowledge of it, the preacher must drift aimlessly in doctrine and fail to a large degree in his attempts to harmonize and utilize the Scriptures. Doubtless a spiritually minded person who does not know the divine program may discern isolated spiritual truths, much as one might enjoy a point of rare color in a painting without observing the picture itself or the specific contribution which that color makes to the whole.

In spite of its importance as one of the qualifying features of doctrine, Systematic Theology, as set forth generally in textbook, is without recognition of the divine program of the ages.

Chafer – Vol 1, pp. 225-259

Chapter XV

Divine Decrees

In its theological implications, the term decree betokens the plan by which God has proceeded in all His acts of creation and continuation. That He has such a plan is not only the justified deduction of reason—He being perfect in wisdom—, but is the clear testimony of the Bible. Those numerous passages which assert the decree, the purpose, the determinate counsel, the foreknowledge, the foreordination, and the election, by which God is said to act, combine to establish the truth that, either directly or indirectly and as stated in the Westminster Confession, He originates and executes “whatsoever comes to pass.” No deductions concerning God could be more dishonoring or misleading than the suppositions that He is not sovereign over His works, or that He is not working according to a plan which articulates the dictation of infinite intelligence. Could the imagination of man picture a situation before any creative act of God was wrought, when God, as it were, had before Him an infinite variety of possible plans or blueprints from which to choose—each and every one of which represented a possible program of divine action as far-reaching and elaborate as the one now being executed—, it would be reasonable and honoring to God to conclude that the present plan as ordained and as it is being achieved is, and in the end will prove to be, the best plan and purpose that could have been devised by infinite wisdom, consummated by infinite power, and that which will be the supreme satisfaction to infinite love. Such an exercise of the imagination would be at fault in the one particular, namely, that it supposes that the plan and purpose of God which is now in process has not been in anticipation from all eternity. This fact but serves to emphasize the point in view, which is that the present plan is as perfect as its Author. It is most essential to clear thinking on the part of devout minds that all suggestions which tend to imply that God is not following a plan which is worthy of Him, or that He is but partially in authority, or that He has failed and is seeking to salvage something out of the wreckage, or that He is conforming to existing things over which He has no control, shall be rejected and that, in spite of the immediate problems which the presence of sin and suffering create, it shall be accredited to God that, in the end, He shall have wrought that which alone is consonant with infinite wisdom and goodness. Such an evaluation of the present order is demanded in the light of the revelation, already considered, as to the essential character of God, being the only conclusion which unprejudiced reason can approve.

When weighing the facts of the sovereignty of God in the execution of His eternal purpose, problems arise—problems more difficult than those encountered when weighing the truths concerning God’s Person and attributes. In the latter instance, knowable realities are projected into infinity, but without the element of seeming contradiction. In the former instance, or when contemplating divine sovereignty as seen in the control by a holy God over a universe into which sin has entered and in which there is said to be the freedom to act on the part of beings other than the sovereign God, conflicting relationships arise. Some of these problems cannot be solved in this world; they never have been solved here, nor will they ever be. In the previous discussion the issue which the presence of sin in the world engenders was approached in the light of divine foreknowledge. It must now be approached in the light of the divine purpose and permission. When this issue is reduced to its lowest dimensions, there remain but two general overtures: either (1) that God is sovereign and all that ever has existed or will exist is within His plan, or (2) that He is not sovereign and there is more or less in the universe which exists in defiance of His holy character and over which He has no authority. The latter overture, in the extreme form in which it is here presented, is discredited by all devout and thoughtful individuals, though too often some modification of that overture is adopted as a supposed release from the burden which the problem of sin in God’s universe imposes. No modifications of divine sovereignty can be allowed without challenging the worthiness of God. Not a vestige of a praiseworthy conception of God remains in the mind of the one who supposes that, to the slightest degree, God has failed, has been defeated, or is making light of sin. Insuperable difficulties arise in the outworking of either of these overtures, but those engendered by the former are far less than those engendered by the latter. It is, therefore, better to approach the difficulties from the position wherein the absolute sovereignty of God and worthiness of all His works are upheld. No doubt should be entertained as to the just and authoritative way in which God achieves His ends. Having established by the investigation of the attributes of God the holy character of God, His infinite righteousness, His omniscience and omnipotence, it is incumbent upon the rational mind to approach the difficulties, which arise when an adjustment is attempted of all that the sovereignty of God imposes, from the standpoint of all that God has been proved to be. At its best, man’s understanding is fallible and this limitation is ever being demonstrated by the shallow and hasty way in which men deal with these difficulties. To suspect the wisdom of men is not a serious matter; yea, they might all be found to be liars without transgressing the bounds of revelation concerning the moral corruption of the human heart. It is, however, a most serious thing to suspect the wisdom, holiness, or authority of God. Moses has recorded in Deuteronomy 29:29 that there are secret things which belong to God, and that there are revealed things which belong to men. It is folly to suppose that the revealed things include all that there is to be known. The theologian is not to be discredited but rather commended who, when confronted with the secret things of God, is able to say, I do not know.

Concerning revealed things, it may be said again that very much that belongs in that category has no part in the divine message to the unregenerate, to whom the things of God are, at most, only “foolishness” (1 Cor. 2:14). Likewise, much that is revealed belongs not at all to those regenerate persons who, because of their immaturity or carnality, can receive only the “milk of the word.” Some portions of the divine revelation, being divinely classed as “strong meat,” are not intended for babes. The extent of harm that has been wrought in certain periods of the church’s history by the indiscriminate preaching to all classes of men of the doctrines of sovereignty, predestination, and election, cannot be estimated. Unregenerate men are not burdened with the necessity of ascertaining whether they are elect or not. God speaks to them with absolute faithfulness to the end that they may exercise faith in His Son as their Savior and thereby be saved. The evangelist when declaring his message to lost men properly ignores all problems which arise concerning issues which belong to conditions obtaining before the fall of man. It is enough for the unregenerate to know that they are rightfully condemned and that a perfect salvation is secured for them through the saving grace of God in Christ Jesus. Unlike this, it is incumbent on the student of theology, to whom God’s deeper revelation is addressed, to penetrate into that which may be known about how man came to be lost and what could have brought it to pass in the midst of a universe wherein a holy God rules supreme. Speaking of God’s saving grace for the unregenerate, Bishop Moule declares: “Grace is the unmerited complement of need”; but, it may be added, the gospel of grace includes the discussion of no obscure and difficult themes such as surround the doctrine of election or the permission of sin in the world. Nor are such themes adapted to backward saints such as the Apostle described when he said: “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat” (Heb. 5:12).

I. The Decree of God

The doctrine of divine decree is only another method of assigning to God the position of first cause of all that exists. There is one comprehensive plan in which all things have their place and by which they proceed. The Westminster Shorter Catechism asserts that it is “his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass” (Question 7). God did not, however, decree anything concerning Himself—as to His existence, His attributes, the mode of His subsistence in three Persons, or any inherent relationship or assumption of responsibilities within the Godhead. Nor did God decree regarding His own existence and transitive acts as though He commanded Himself to create, to uphold, or to govern His universe. The decree of God relates to His acts which are not immanent and intrinsic and are outside His own Being.

The term decree of God appears first in the singular, since God has but one all-inclusive plan. He sees all things at a glance. For convenience, the separate features of this plan may be called the decrees of God; but there should be no implication in this that the infinite understanding of God advances by steps or in a train. And there is no possibility that the one plan will be altered by omissions or additions. Nor is it true that God sustains a distinct and unrelated purpose concerning each aspect of His one intention. With God there is one immutable decree embracing in itself every detail, even the falling of a sparrow. It is the divine cognition from all eternity. “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18).

It should be observed that God formed His decree in eternity, though its execution is in time. The decree being eternal, all its parts are, in the mind of God, but one intuition, though in its realization there is succession. Christ’s earthly mission was seen in one conception, yet an interval of thirty-three years fell between His birth and His death. He was “foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times” (1 Pet. 1:20). Augustine states: “God willeth not one thing now, and another anon; but once, and at once, and always, he willeth all things that he willeth; not again and again, nor now this, now that; nor willeth afterwards, what before he willed not, nor willeth not, what before he willed; because such a will is mutable; and no mutable thing is eternal” (Confess., XII, xv, cited by Shedd, Theology, I, 395). The power to conceive of a thing as a whole before it is executed in the order which its intention requires, is not altogether outside the range of finite minds. There is every reason to believe that Solomon foresaw and designed every detail of the temple before any work was begun. That vision accorded him was as comprehensive concerning those features that were to be wrought out at the end of the process as concerning those which were first in the order of procedure. The capstone is no less evident in the architect’s mind than is the foundation. It is true that human foresight is subject to development and change, which mutability is never true of the divine archetypal vision.

Having thus emphasized the eternal character of the divine decree, it may yet be added that the decree of God is wise, being the product of infinite wisdom. There is a worthy reason for all that God has ever done or will do. Even His permission of evil will, like the wrath of man, be made to praise Him (Ps. 76:10). “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (Rom. 11:33).

Likewise, the divine decree is free. “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?” (Isa. 40:13, 14). Being alone when His decree was made, His determinations were influenced by no other being. Aside from the fact that He must act according to His wisdom and holiness, He was free to do or not to do. Within the sphere of His perfections, He could do what He would. It is near to impiety to assert that God could not have done otherwise than He has done, though it is probable that He would not have done otherwise, being guided by that which is worthy of Himself.

Lastly, the divine decree is absolutely unconditional. The execution of it is in no way suspended upon conditions which may or may not emerge. The Arminian notion that the will of man is sovereign in its power to resist the Almighty must be denied, since it is everywhere refuted in the history of God’s dealing with men. God may, for good reasons, allow man’s will to prevail; but He does not have to do so. He has power over every will to cause it to do His good pleasure. “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” (Isa. 46:10). “Who worketh all things after the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11, R.V.). Such a statement could not be made in truthfulness if the execution of His purpose depended upon a cooperation with others which was in their power to withhold. This phase of the theme is yet to be attended more at length.

Reference may be made again to the distinction within the knowledge which God holds concerning future events, by which He recognizes some things as merely possible but never to become actual and therefore not to be included in His eternal decree, and things which are divinely determined. Of the total which all His knowledge and all His almighty power might achieve, He purposed to do some things only, and that purpose made those specific things forever certain. There are those who at this point would intrude another distinction within the knowledge of God. They claim to recognize that certain things—notably the free acts of men—are not at all derived from God, but rather from the creature. To these free acts it is asserted that God could have no relation other than to foreknow what the creature will do. This notion is advanced by those who maintain that God’s decrees are conditional, to the end that some are chosen to eternal life on the basis of divine foresight as to their faith and obedience. This theory, if it were true, would support the wholly unscriptural idea that, in the end, men are saved on the ground of their own merit and worthiness. This claim not only opposes the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, but leaves the question as to whether God is the Author of sin unanswered and places God in the unworthy position of being dependent upon His creatures. The Scriptures, while recognizing a freedom of action in man, do, nevertheless, assert that man is not exempt from the control of his Creator. It may be said that God does know what the actions of men will be when placed under certain circumstances. It is equally true that He is the Author of circumstances. God knew that when placed under the circumstances which obtained, Adam would fall. God could have arranged matters otherwise, but this He did not do. The question as to the relation between the divine and the human responsibility is, in such a development, exceedingly complex. God did not fail to warn Adam, nor, when pronouncing sentence upon him after his sin, did God assume any portion of the responsibility. It may be further observed that had Adam obeyed God, as God commanded him to do, there would have been no need of a Redeemer; yet the Redeemer as well as the need for Him was evidently in the decree of God from all eternity (Rev. 13:8). This problem, yet to be considered more fully, is far reaching, but is not solved by any theory which seeks escape from the difficulties through the exit of a supposed irresponsible divine fore-knowledge.

If no certain knowledge of God were accorded to men, they might be pardoned for supposing that God does not know what He is doing, that He has no power to rescue Himself from the dilemmas into which ignorance would plunge Him or that He maintains no standards of holiness. Such conclusions might be accounted for among heathen people to whom no revelation has come. But God is revealed to men and they are without excuse if they hold conceptions of Him which disregard His perfections. Problems exist, but every such must be approached and solved—in so far as it can be solved—without the slightest departure from the infinite worthiness of God. Certain systems of theology begin with man, center about man, and end with man; and God is introduced only as He conforms to this man-centered notion. On the other hand, certain systems of theology begin with God, center about God, and end with God; and man is introduced only as he conforms to this God-centered idea. It is obvious to which of these two general systems the Bible lends its support, and which, in the end, gives rest and satisfaction to the heart of man. The greatest of all problems emerges when man directs his thoughts to the sovereignty of God and all that sovereignty implies. These problems are never solved by minimizing God, holiness, sin, or human responsibility. Published systems of theology which either omit the doctrine of divine decree, or oppose the doctrine, are justly reprehensible. They remove the rudder from the ship and set it afloat subject to wind and tide. It is a dishonor even to a man to assert that he does not act with purposed, rational ends in view, or that he does not employ worthy means to realize those ends. The doctrine of divine decree of itself introduces nothing mysterious or profound. It declares that God both designed and willed before He acted, and that all His actions are in harmony with His perfect character and attributes. Problems appear when man, with his own free will, and the fact of sin enter upon the scene.

The term divine decree is an attempt to gather up into one designation that to which the Scriptures refer by various designations—the divine purpose (Eph. 1:11), determinate counsel (Acts 2:23). fore-knowledge (1 Pet. 1:2; cf. 1:20), election (1 Thess. 1:4), predestination (Rom. 8:30), the divine will (Eph. 1:11), and the divine good pleasure (Eph. 1:9). When reference is made to divine counsels it does not suggest conference on the part of God with other beings, but that His counsels are consummately wise. In like manner, the reference to the divine will does not suggest capricious or unreasonable action. Infinite wisdom directs the divine determination. In this sense His decree is said to be the “counsel of his will.” These terms certainly signify that God acts only according to an eternal purpose which incorporates all things.

When seeking to arrive at a right understanding of the doctrine of the divine decree, it is essential to distinguish decree from predestination and predestination from election and retribution. The divine decree embraces all that was or is future. Whatever was to transpire in time was decreed from eternity, whether good or evil, whether great or small, whether wrought directly by God or indirectly through agencies. The decree itself provided for the free actions of creatures and included what men are pleased to call accidents. Regarding that which is good in contradistinction to that which is evil, a discrimination is usually made: the one being by divine appointment and the other by divine permission. The divine decree embraces the entire ongoing of the universe including things material and things immaterial. The term predestination is restricted to the creatures of God whether angelic or human and, regardless of the fact that in the Scriptures it is usually applied to those that are good, is, in its larger meaning, properly used concerning the destination of all created beings—some of whom are the elect and some reprobate. Again, election is narrower in its meaning than predestination, since it refers only to those who are in right relations to God and destined to eternal blessings; and over against this is retribution which includes in its designation all that are non-elect.

Had not sin entered into the universe and had all creatures remained in their first estate, it is probable that no objection to the doctrine of divine decree, with its recognition of sovereignty, would have been elicited. In this connection it is worthy of note that there are vast realms of the universe and spheres of the divine authority wherein the divine sovereignty has not been controverted. Within what is, comparatively, an exceedingly limited portion of the universe, holiness and sin are now in dispute and the duration of this conflict is restricted to that inconceivable fraction of eternity which is represented by time. He who in the eternity past reigned supreme, will yet reign in the eternity to come with all enemies destroyed. It is an improbability of surpassing magnitute—even when subjected to reason alone—that He who reigns in all eternity over the vast domain of the universe, has met His defeat and become impotent rather than omnipotent in the face of moral issues which in His eternal counsels He has permitted to exist for a restricted time. The Scriptures assert the never-failing sovereignty of God, and never more emphatically than when they predict the fast-approaching hour when sin shall be no more. Who, indeed, is determining the hour when sin shall cease? Is it to cease by mere caprice? Or does God sustain no more vital relation to its cessation than to foreknow that it will cease? Who maketh wars to cease? By whose power and authority will Satan be bound and confined to the abyss and finally cast into the lake of fire? Who prepared that lake of fire? Is it a mere accident, about which God only foreknows, that this universe will yet be purged of all evil? Or is it a fable that the Creator will yet pronounce sentence upon His every foe? To God alone be majesty, dominion, and power for ever and ever—Amen!

Having thus ascribed a feeble note of praise to God, it now is necessary—as is incumbent upon all students of Biblical theism—to give attention to the problems which the theme of divine sovereignty engenders. There are issues involved in such a contemplation which are too vast for the finite mind to fathom, and no intelligent, reverent person will be surprised to discover the boundaries of his finite mind. When standing on the border between the finite and the infinite, between time and eternity, between the perfect, irresistible will of God and the impotent, perverted will of man, between sovereign grace and hell-deserving sin, who among men is too proud to exclaim, There are some things which I do not understand?

The perplexing issues which arise are not the burden of any particular system of theology. They belong properly to all, and none is commendable which assumes that it is not concerned with such issues.

It is probable that these questions are difficult largely because of man’s limited knowledge of the essential character of sin, of the essential, yet widely different, scope of the human will as compared with the divine will, and of the true and ultimate purpose of God. With these qualifying facts in mind, the problems are, as to their general amplitude, really but two, namely, (1) the moral problem, or the fact that evil is present in a universe over which God reigns supreme, and (2) the problem of the will, or the seeming irreconcilability of the free will of man with the sovereignty of God. These are now to be examined.

1. Two Basic Problems

a. THE MORAL PROBLEM. The permission and presence of sin in the universe over which the infinitely holy God rules interpolates a clash of ideas which in all its involvements no human mind can fully harmonize. Considering the two dissonant realities, namely, God and sin, it is certain that the solution of the difficulty will not be discovered in the direction of any assumption that God was unable to prevent sin from eventuating in the universe, or that He cannot cause it to cease at any moment of time. To the same end, it is certain that the dilemma will not be adjusted or relieved by any supposition that sin is not exceedingly sinful in the sight of God—that which He hates with a perfect hatred. The issue must stand without modification that God, who is actively and infinitely holy and who is utterly free in all His enterprises, being able to create or not create and to exclude evil from that which He did create, has, nevertheless, permitted evil to appear and run its course in angelic and human spheres. This perplexity is also intensified to a measureless degree by the fact that God knew when He permitted sin to be manifest, that it would cost Him the greatest sacrifice it is possible for God to make—even the death of His Son. The Scriptures state with abundant certainty that (a) God is all-powerful and is not, therefore, imposed upon by sin against His permissive will; (b) that God is perfectly holy and hates sin unqualifiedly; and (c) that sin is present in the universe with all its injury to created beings and that this injury, because of the failure of some to enter into redeeming grace, will continue upon them for all eternity to come.

If the Scriptures assert a thing to be true, it should be so received by every Christian. Should there seem to be a conflict of ideas, as noted above, they fact remains that the Biblical account of each item in the consideration is true, the perplexity being attributable to insufficient understanding by the human mind. The Bible attempts no explanation of those dilemmas which men observe. The seeming conflict of ideas evidently has no reality or existence in the mind of God. By attentive contemplation of certain issues, the perplexity may be somewhat relieved.

(1) The Essential Nature of Sin. Though the whole field of hamartiology is indicated at this point in this discussion, its full treatment must be reserved for its rightful place as a subdivision of Anthropology. The problem of the presence of sin in God’s universe is lessened to no small degree when due consideration is given to the precise nature of sin. Too often it has been assumed that evil is a divine creation and therefore had no actuality until God gave it place among existing things; whereas evil, as an abstract reality, is no more a created thing than is virtue. So long as God has existed, virtue has existed; and so long as virtue has existed, there has been a conceivable opposite to it, though there was not the slightest possibility that the opposite of virtue could find expression until beings were created who had the ability to sin. Such a deduction is not to be judged as even a mild form of dualism, else the foreknowledge of God which foresaw the present conflict between good and evil, and, in fact, the present conflict itself, is dualism. How in the purpose of God could the Lamb be slain, as an offering for sin, from all eternity if the potential fact of evil were not under divine consideration? On the other hand, the problem of how evil could enter the universe and find manifestation by divine permission only, is most difficult to comprehend. So far as the first human sin is concerned, there was a sinister tempter present to whom much responsibility is assigned; but in the case of the first sin of the angels the issue is baffling indeed, for neither outward temptation nor inward depravity was present. Certainly a passive divine permission generates no impelling disposition to evil. This feature of the whole inquiry relative to the permission of sin is doubtless its intrinsic essence or nature, and is wholly outside the range of finite comprehension.

As to what purpose the presence of sin in the universe may serve, various suggestions have been advanced, none of which, nor all combined, have proved a complete answer to the question. (a) The ultimate purpose of God being to bring men into the similitude of Himself, they, to reach this end, must come to know to some degree what God knows. They must recognize the evil character of sin. This God knows intuitively, but such knowledge can be gained by creatures only through observation and experience. Obviously, if the divine purpose is to be realized, evil must be permitted its manifestation. What the demonstration of sin and the experience of it may mean to angels, is not revealed. (b) There is that in God which no creature had ever seen—though they had viewed His glory, His wisdom, and His power—, namely, His grace toward the fallen and sinful. But no demonstration of grace is possible unless there are objects of grace, and there could be no objects of grace apart from the presence and experience of sin. (c) Likewise, the principle of sin—a thing opposite to virtue—must be brought into complete and final judgment. The universe must be purged of the realities of sin and its possibilities. An abstract thing cannot be rightfully judged until it has become concrete. Thus it may be judged in its actual character, as it was judged at the cross. But the very bringing of evil into concrete form involved its present manifestation in the universe.

From these suggestions, proffered by reason, it may be concluded that the primary divine purpose was neither to avoid the presence of sin in the universe, for God could have prevented it, nor to dispose of it before His appointed time, for its whole reality could be terminated and dismissed at any moment by a word of His command. That there may be many sons in glory capable of singing the song of redemption (Rev. 5:9) and that the whole universe may be purged of all evil, are knowledge-surpassing divine purposes; but these desired ends are wholly dependent for their fruition upon the presence of sin in the world. Such contemplation should never lessen the human estimation of the divine hatred for sin, nor be any encouragement to a creature to sin. That sin is infinitely evil is demonstrated by the ruin it has wrought among the angels, the present depravity of humanity with all its woes, and the fact that no cure for sin could be found at a less cost than the blood of the Son of God. It is near to an unpardonable assumption for the finite mind to presume to evaluate and sit in judgment upon the course which God pursues. He is trustworthy and should be trusted wholly. “He hath done all things well,” and it is the worthy anticipation of every believer that he shall be satisfied when he awakes in His likeness (Ps. 17:15).

(2) The Permission of Sin. Calvinistic theologians generally have made a distinction within the whole field of occurrences embraced in the divine decree, dividing these vast issues into two aggregations—the decrees which they are pleased to style efficacious and those which they style permissive. The efficacious decrees are those which determine occurrences directly by physical causes (Job 28:26), and by spiritual forces (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:8, 10; 4:24). The permissive decrees embrace only moral features which are evil. The term permissive intimates that God does not actively promote the execution of the decrees that are thus indicated. In contrast to the efficacious, energizing divine purpose which works to the end that men will and do His good pleasure, He, by way of permission, “in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways” (Acts 14:16); “He gave them their own desire” (Ps. 78:29; cf. 106:15). In respect to His permissive will, it is claimed, God determines not to hinder the course of action which His creatures pursue; but He does determine to regulate and control the bounds and the results of such actions. John Howe has said on this point: “God’s permissive will is his will to permit whatsoever he thinks fit to permit, or, not to hinder; while what he so wills or determines so to permit, he intends also to regulate, and not to behold as an idle unconcerned spectator, but to dispose all those permissa unto wise and great ends of his own” (Decrees, Lecture I, cited by Shedd, Theology, I, pp. 406–7).

Due consideration should be given to the fact that, in permitting sin, God decrees the thing which He hates, and which, as has been noted, would cost Him the greatest of all sacrifices. Such a decree is related to His “good pleasure,” only to the extent that He, for reasons known unto Himself, permits evil its entrance and present procedure. The problem is confessedly a difficult one for all concerned, but it does not stand alone. The permission of evil continues with every succeeding hour of human history. That which in His own counsels He did not hinder in the beginning, He does not hinder in all its subsequent development. The manifestation of evil must run its determined course and arrive at its determined ends. The Arminian approach to the solution of this problem assigns to God no relation to the advent of sin into the universe other than that He foreknew that it would eventuate. This view is wholly inadequate, since foreknowledge on the part of God carries with it, of necessity, all the force of a sovereign purpose. A thing cannot be fore-known that is not certain, and nothing is certain until God’s sovereign decree makes it thus. Objection to the doctrine of divine decree is raised by some on the ground that it renders human actions necessary. But human action is no less necessary when viewed from the standpoint of foreknowledge than from divine decree. The least of all things which God foreknows can no more be uncertain than the universe itself. God created angels and men with the full cognizance that they would sin. Reason asserts that the responsibility for the issues of His creation must, in the end, rest upon the Creator. On this theme the Scriptures give final revelation. At no point are creatures permitted to trace responsibility from themselves back to God. When God pronounced judgment upon Adam, He did not say I am partly to blame since I created you. The blame rested on Adam alone. The race fell in Adam and became what they are, “the children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3), and the original sin with all its fruitage is never linked to God in any way. This principle obtains as well in the sphere of rewards which are yet to be given to the faithful. It is to be acknowledged by all that each and every virtue or worthy service is wrought only by the enabling power of the Spirit of God; yet, when conferring His rewards, God is not expected to say, I claim the larger share in all you did for me. The honor and credit for service will rest upon the faithful alone as undividedly as though they had wrought it in their own strength.

The divine permission of evil in the human sphere extends beyond the one sin of Adam. It is written that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to the end that a demonstration of divine power might be fully displayed. By that demonstration the whole multitude of the Egyptians came to know something of Jehovah (Ex. 14:4). Again, and as a revelation concerning God’s attitude toward sin, the fact is obvious that God commanded Adam not to sin, and yet, unless Adam did sin, there would be no need of the Redeemer, of which Redeemer it had been decreed in eternal ages before Adam that He would come (Rev. 13:8). Similarly, God said to King Saul that if he had kept the commandments given to him, his house would have been established forever (1 Sam. 13:13); yet by decree it was determined and prophecy foretold that the everlasting throne and kingdom for Israel was to come through the tribe of Judah and not through the tribe of Benjamin, to which tribe Saul belonged (Gen. 49:10). To the same end it may be perceived that, in the controversy between Jehovah and Satan as recorded in the first two chapters of Job, Satan admits that he can bring no testing upon Job apart from the permission of Jehovah; and it is stated that Jehovah gave Satan this permission. Again, the experience of an individual who sins is suggestive. After the sin has been committed, the one who sins could say: God is to be blamed. He could have prevented me from sinning, but He did not. That, however, the sinner does not say, since there is within him a consciousness that he alone is responsible. Martyrs could have prevented the sin of murder on the part of their slayers had they but recanted from their position relative to the truth in question. Even Christ Himself could have prevented an uncounted number of men from the measureless sin of the crucifixion of the Son of God, had He come down from the cross. All this suggests the obvious fact that the mere avoidance of sin is not always the primary issue.

With all these situations in view, the candid mind refuses to predicate sin of God either directly or indirectly.

It may be concluded, then, that sin is in the universe by the permission of God who hates it perfectly and who, being sovereign, had power to keep it from manifestation, had He chosen to do so. That He did not hinder the manifestation of sin, demonstrates that He, being what He is, must have a purpose in view other than the averting of sin. Here as nowhere else in the affairs of the universe, the end justifies the means.

b. THE PROBLEM OF THE WILL. This difficulty lends itself to various presentations. It may in general be stated thus: If God be sovereign and only those things occur which are determined in His decree, is there any sphere left in which a creature may exercise his own free will? Or, again, could the human will ever act outside the decree of God, and, if it does not, is its action free?

To the problem stated in these questions, more or less clarifying answers have been made. But before these answers are considered, it is well to give some attention to the precise nature of the issues involved.

As first created, both angels and men were gladly and perfectly subject to the will of God. Such, indeed, is the present estate of unfallen angels and there is no need to inquire concerning them and the exercise of their wills. They are determined to do only that which pleases God. Freedom to do otherwise is accorded them as fully as it was accorded those angels “who kept not their first estate” (Jude 1:6). They continue in His will and doubtless will do so throughout eternity. The first sin to be committed in heaven and in the universe itself was committed by the greatest of all the angels and before—perhaps ages before—the creation of man. The angel who first sinned in heaven is described, both as to his person and divine appointment, in Ezekiel 28:11–15 and under the title of “the king of Tyrus.” The nature of that sin is recorded in Isaiah 14:12–14 where that angel is introduced under the title of “Lucifer, son of the morning,” and where the precise character of his fivefold sin is revealed. It will be seen that the sin consists in the exercise of the angel’s will in opposition to the will of God. No imagination could picture nor could any language express the awfulness of the moment when, for the first time, a creature opposed the sovereign will of his Creator. It was this same being who as the consummation of his own sin had said, “I will be like the most High” (Isa. 14:14), that later appeared in the Garden of Eden and, following the creation of man, there counseled the first man and woman to be as God (Elohim, cf. Dan. 5:11). The A.V. translation, “Be as gods,” is open to question, since the name of Deity which is used here by the Spirit is Elohim. It is a plural name, indeed, but is the original from which the English title God is almost universally translated throughout the Old Testament. He who had sinned and fallen by saying, “I will be like the most High,” now proposes to unfallen man that he by disobedience be as God. Only in the one respect—independence—could either angel or man be as God.

Over against this, it is revealed that the perfect manhood of Christ was wholly subject to the will of His Father. It is written of Him that, “when he cometh into the world, he saith, … Lo, I come … to do thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:5–7; cf. Ps. 40:6–8). There could be no perfect humanity or creaturehood which is not completely subject to the will of God; and the first step in salvation on the part of those for whom redemption is provided is that they shall obey the gospel (Acts 5:32; 2 Thess. 1:8; Heb. 5:9; 1 Pet. 4:17). With this provision in view, there is no need that any should be lost who desire to be saved.

The human choice of that which is good, like the choice of that which is evil, originates within, as the individual’s volition and is free in the sense that the individual is not conscious of any necessity being imposed upon him. All human action is included in this conception. Since human action appears to be restrained by nothing other than moral suasion or by emotions, the interrogation is in order as to what extent the human will is free. Over against the sense of freedom to act which the individual experiences, the Scriptures teach that there are far-reaching restraints upon that will. Of the unregenerate it is asserted that they, being children of disobedience, are energized (ἐνεργέω—energeō) by Satan (Eph. 2:2), which fact denotes almost unlimited domination over those thus energized. Concerning the regenerate it is revealed that “it is God which worketh [ἐνεργέω] in you” (Phil. 2:13), which fact denotes almost unlimited domination by God over those who are saved. Thus the entire human family—both those who are unsaved and those who are saved—is included, and not one of these is really free from a superior influence. This influence, potent as it is, may be wholly unrecognized within the range of human experience. The Bible plainly asserts that God influences the unregenerate, as, to some extent, Satan and the power of a fallen nature influence the regenerate. The influence of God upon the unregenerate must be exercised if ever they are to turn to Him in saving faith. Christ declared, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44); and the Apostle has written by the Spirit, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8; cf. Phil. 1:29). Much perplexity is caused by the statements that God at times hinders spiritual vision and hardens hearts. He commanded concerning Israel: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed” (Isa. 6:10). This is a judgment upon the nation for their evil ways and serves also as the blinding of that people, as predicted, throughout the present age in which Jews and Gentiles alike are confronted with the saving grace of God and His purpose in the outcalling of the Church (Rom. 11:25). Seven times it is stated that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; Rom. 9:17, 18), and three times it is said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34; cf. Deut. 2:30. Note, also, Ex. 7:13, 22; 8:19). Thus it is also recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 that God shall give the people of the coming tribulation age “strong delusion” (or, better, “the working of delusion”) that they should believe the falsehood. This delusion is to the end that they all may be judged, who received not the love of the truth so that they might be saved. There is no mere permissiveness here or in the case of Pharaoh. God is definitely said to be the cause of these states of heart, as He is also the cause of Israel’s blindness. In these instances, as elsewhere and often, God apparently asks not to be relieved from the direct responsibility that He causes all that is predicated of Him. It is certain that in the above-named instances, God does not create the evil heart, but rather brings out into overt action that which is latent within the heart to the end that it may be judged. “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth” (Rom. 9:18).

The will of the creature is a creation of God and in relation to it God sustains no timidity or uncertainty. He made the creature’s will as an instrument by which He might accomplish His sovereign purpose and it is inconceivable that it should ever thwart His purpose. As bearing upon the sovereignty of God over all creatures, the student should read with reverent attention Isaiah 40:10–31 and Job 38:1–41:34.

When exercising his will, man is conscious only of his freedom of action. He determines his course by circumstances, but God is the author of circumstances. Man is impelled by emotions, but God is able to originate and to control every human emotion. Man prides himself that he is governed by experienced judgment, but God is able to foster each and every thought or determination of the human mind. God will mold and direct in all secondary causes until His own eternal purpose is realized. How else could He fulfill His covenants which commit Him to the control of the actions and destinies of men to the end of time and into eternity? His election is sure; for whom He predestinates, them—not more or less—He calls; and whom He calls, them—not more or less—He justifies; and whom He justifies, them—not more or less—He glorifies. When predestinating, He assumes the responsibility of creating, calling, saving, and completing according to His own purpose. In calling He moves those to believe to the saving of their souls, whom He has chosen. In justifying He provides a substitutionary, efficacious Savior by whose death and resurrection He is legally able to place the chief of sinners in as perfect a relation to Himself as that of His own Son And in glorifying He perfects all that infinite love has designed. The precise number that will be glorified will be the precise number and the same individuals—not more or less—that He predestinated. Each one will have believed, have been saved, have been perfected and presented like Christ in glory. Men enter consciously into this great undertaking only at the one point of believing, or responding to the efficacious call. Naturally, it seems to them that they, acting in freedom within the restricted sphere of their consciousness, determine everything. Their action is vital, for no link in God’s chain can be lacking. The point where misunderstanding arises is with reference to the fact that, so far as their cognizance serves them, they are certain that they act freely; yet every truly regenerate person will testify that he would not have turned to God apart from that all-important divine drawing of his heart. Divine election is absolute. If this seems to some to be taking things out of the hands of men and committing them into the hands of God, it will at least be conceded that, when thus committed to God, things are in better hands and this, after all, is God’s own universe in which He has sovereign right to do after the dictates of His own will. It will also be conceded that the sphere of human action, so far as it can mean anything in the sphere of human consciousness, is left in perfect freedom of action. It should be deemed no crime on the part of God that He discloses to His own elect that His sovereign power and purpose are working through and over all human forces and secondary causes.

Writing of the proposed solutions of the problem which two wills engender, Dr. John Dick states:

Here we come to a question which has engaged the attention, and exercised the ingenuity, and perplexed the wits of men in every age. If God has fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass, the whole series of events is necessary, and human liberty is taken away. Men are passive instruments in the hands of their Maker; they can do nothing but what they are secretly and irresistibly influenced to do; they are not, therefore, responsible for their actions; and God is the Author of sin. To this objection it is replied, that the divine decree is extrinsic to the human mind; that it exerts no force or influence upon our faculties; and that, while it insures the futurition of events, it leaves them to be accomplished in the exercise of our liberty. While it determines that some things should be brought to pass necessarily, it determines that other things should be brought to pass freely. God has decreed, not only that men should act, but that they should act freely, and agreeably to their rational nature. He determined the act; but men being free agents, it was possible, in respect of their liberty abstractly considered, that they might act differently. When, however, you have reflected upon this answer, and stripped it of its technical form, you will find that it amounts to nothing. It just says, that, notwithstanding the decree of God, man retains his liberty of action; and, consequently, puts us off with an assertion under the pretext of giving us an explanation. Believing that all things are immutably fixed in the divine counsels, we wish to know how the predetermination is consistent with liberty. To what purpose is it to tell us, that God has decreed that some things shall take place necessarily, and other things freely? What information does this answer give us? what doubt does it solve? Still the question remains, How can those actions be free, which were so fixed that they could not be avoided?

It is a more intelligible method to explain the subject by the doctrine, which makes liberty consist in the power of acting according to the prevailing inclination, or the motive which appears strongest to the mind. Those actions are free which are the effect of volition. In whatever manner the state of mind which gave rise to the volition has been produced, the liberty of the agent is neither greater nor less. It is his will alone which is to be considered, and not the means by which it has been determined. If God fore-ordained certain actions, and placed men in such circumstances that the actions would certainly take place agreeably to the laws of the mind, men are nevertheless moral agents, because they act voluntarily, and are responsible for the actions which consent has made their own. Liberty does not consist in the power of acting or not acting, but in acting from choice. The choice is determined by something in the mind itself, or by something external influencing the mind; but, whatever is the cause, the choice makes the action free, and the agent accountable. If this definition of liberty be admitted, you will perceive that it is possible to reconcile the freedom of the will with absolute decrees; but we have not got rid of every difficulty. By this theory, human actions appear to be as necessary as the motions of matter according to the laws-of gravitation and attraction; and man seems to be a machine, conscious of his movements, and consenting to them, but impelled by something different from himself.

Upon such a subject, no man should be ashamed to acknowledge his ignorance. We are not required to reconcile the divine decrees and human liberty. It is enough to know that God has decreed all things which come to pass, and that men are answerable for their actions. Of both these truths we are assured by the Scriptures; and the latter is confirmed by the testimony of conscience. We feel that, although not independent upon God, we are free; so that we excuse ourselves when we have done our duty, and accuse ourselves when we have neglected it. Sentiments of approbation and disapprobation in reference to our own conduct or that of other men, would have no existence in our minds if we believed that men are necessary agents. But the tie which connects the divine decrees and human liberty is invisible. “Such knowledge is too wonderful for us; it is high, we cannot attain unto it”. If every thing in religion were level to the comprehension of reason, there would be no room for faith. It is better to believe humbly, than to reason presumptuously. And presumptuous all those reasonings may be called, which lead to the denial of the immutability of the divine counsels, or of the freedom of the human will; which make man a machine, and God the author of sin.—Lectures on Theology, p. 186

2. Predestination. The term predestination signifies a predetermining of destiny. The body of truth which this term represents is properly a subdivision of the doctrine of divine decree. It does not relate to the destiny of material things, but in its broadest meaning it concerns the destiny of all intelligent creatures, including angels and men. For want of specific revelation, little is known concerning the destiny of angels. It is assumed that the holy angels will abide in that estate and they are seen in the eternal city (Heb. 12:22–24). Those angels which kept not their first estate are destined to the lake of fire (Matt. 25:41; cf. Rev. 20:10), and there is no intimation that any redemption is ever offered to them. A far more determining revelation is found in the Bible as to the destiny of men. And as certainly as God foreordains whatsoever cometh to pass, the future of each human being is marked off in God’s eternal plan. Like the larger doctrine of divine decree, this particular aspect of predestination is fraught with perplexities, all of which, it may be believed, are due to the restrictions which encompass the human mind. Since divine predestination is taught in the Bible without diminution, it is to be received and believed. Rationalistic attempts to modify this revelation, as might be expected, have resulted in greater complications.

Outside the predetermined destiny which belongs to Israel and the nations who “inherit the earth,” the doctrine of predestination falls into two divisions, namely, (1) election and (2) retribution. In its earlier and basic significance the term retribution had to do as much with the rewards which accrue to the saved as to the penalties which accrue to the unsaved. Election and retribution are counterparts of each other. There can be no election of some that does not imply the rejection of others.

a. ELECTION. The election which is set forth in the Scriptures, apart from the elect nation Israel—not now under consideration—, is that favor of God, notably a full and free salvation, which is accorded to some, but not to all. Of some it is said that they are “chosen in the Lord” (Rom. 16:13); “chosen … to salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13); “chosen … in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4); predestined to the “adoption of children” (Eph. 1:5); “to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29); “elect according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Pet. 1:2); and “vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory” (Rom. 9:23). The term election should not be construed to mean only a general divine purpose to provide salvation for all men. It refers to an express divine purpose to confer salvation on some, but not all. Nor should the term imply that God will bless those who believe. It rather specifies those who will believe. Some, but not all, are written in the Lamb’s book of life. Evasion of the plain words of Scripture secures nothing in the understanding of this most solemn subject. Whatever may be the case of the nonelect, it is written of the saved that He “hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9); “according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).

There is no mere arbitrary caprice in divine election, for God in this, as in all He does, is governed by infinite wisdom, holiness, and love. As the ground of His election, He foresaw no difference in character of one over another. His choice is not based on anticipated worthiness. Election is an act of grace apart from works. Neither faith nor good works is the cause of divine election. They are rather the fruit of election. Men are not first holy and then chosen; but are first chosen and then holy. It was that they might be holy that they were chosen. The destiny of Isaac’s sons was determined before they had done anything good or bad, that the fact of sovereign election might stand without complication (Rom. 9:11–13). The fact that a supposed conditional election is the belief of the majority is due, doubtless, to the reluctance on the part of man to admit that no merit resides in his natural self.

To the same purpose, the election of God is immutable. Some have contended that it is in the power of the elect to disappoint the calculations of the Almighty. Such sentiments as these are written: “It is false to say that election is confirmed from everlasting.” “Men may make their election void.” They may “change themselves from believers to unbelievers,” from elect to nonelect. To such teachers, there is no word or work of God that is sure. Nevertheless, God hath said: “Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” (Isa. 46:9, 10).

The supralapsarians hold that God’s ultimate purpose in creation is the manifestation of His perfection and that His mercy will be revealed in the election of some and His justice will be revealed in the reprobation of all others. Thus far a solemn truth is declared; but they then advance to an inconsistency. To reach their desired end, they claim that God first decreed to create man and then to place him in circumstances wherein he would fall, and to send His Son to die for those He chose for salvation. In this arrangement, God is seen to treat the fall of man only as a means to an end. Men were elected or rejected before the decree concerning the fall and without reference to the fall. Thus they were not seen as sinners, but as creatures, and as such they were chosen or rejected without a ground for their rejection or without an occasion for the exercise of grace. The effect of this doctrinal scheme is to rob God of all pity and love and to present Him as One who disregards the suffering of His creatures. Such a doctrine may answer to the cold, erring reason of man, but it wholly disregards the full testimony of the Word of God wherein the compassion of God is stressed.

The sublapsarians contend that, in the order of His elective decree, God first permitted the fall and then determined the destiny of men from that starting point as a meritless position before Him. This conception does at least provide a ground for the exercise of grace and a basis for the condemnation of the lost.

Closely related to the lapsarian controversy is the question whether some who are predestined unto life were so chosen in view of the fact that Christ would die for them, that is, for His sake, or that He did die for them because they were the chosen of God. The latter would seem to be true, since God first loved the world and, because of that love, He gave His only begotten Son.

The doctrine of election is a cardinal teaching of the Scriptures. Doubtless, it is attended with difficulties which are a burden upon all systems of theology alike. However, no word of God may be altered or neglected. No little help is gained when it is remembered that revelation and not reason is the guide to faith. When the former has spoken, the latter is appointed to listen and acquiesce.

b. RETRIBUTION. There is that in the purpose of God which is styled retribution. As an act of God, the term means that some are rejected whom He does not elect. The word preterition has been preferred by some as being less severe. Surely, no thoughtful believer would choose to employ terms in relation to the doom of the lost which are unnecessarily strong. The theme is one of surpassing solemnity and it is no evidence of compassion when men purposely express themselves respecting the future estate of the unregenerate in harsh and unfeeling terms. It is a theme which should ever bring one to tears. It is intended by the choice of the word preterition to imply that God assumes no active attitude toward the nonelect other than to pass them by, leaving them under the just condemnation which their lost estate deserves. Thus it is supposed that, to some extent, God is relieved of responsibility if it is predicated of Him that He pretermits rather than reprobates the nonelect. Such distinctions are more a delusion of words than a discrimination of facts. Apart from this awful theme and under any circumstances more congenial, such a labored selection of words would hardly be suffered. It is impossible actively to choose some from a company and not, at the same time and by the same process, actively to reject the remainder. Yet a real distinction exists in the divine way of dealing with one class as compared with the other. New and wholly undeserved blessings are extended to the elect, while the nonelect reap only the just recompense of their lost estate. God does for one class what He does not do for the other, but both aggregations pass before His mind and become objects of His determination. Exceedingly painful expressions are used in the Scriptures to describe the divine decision regarding the nonelect. They are “not written” in the book of life (Rev. 13:8); they are “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Rom. 9:22); they were “before … ordained to this condemnation” (Jude 1:4); they “stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed” (1 Pet. 2:8). God is said to love some less than others (Mal. 1:2, 3). Some are called the “election,” and some are called “the rest” (Rom. 11:7). A dispassionate reading of Romans, chapters nine and eleven, will result in the assurance that, whatever men may believe or disbelieve regarding the matter, the Word of God is bold in declaring that some are appointed to blessing and others are to experience condemnation. Human limitations and perverse reasoning can hardly render true judgments on these issues. It is plain that the doom of the nonelect is not apart from a due consideration of their unworthiness. God is presented as an object of adoration and love, which He could not be were He revealed as One who merely exercised authority apart from goodness and justice. The real problem may be stated thus: Was God just in decreeing to reprobate transgressors of His holy will? In other words, Is evil worthy of eternal separation from God? Upon this issue the human mind can throw no light. What the true nature of sin is as valued by God who is infinitely holy, must be accepted in the terms of revelation. Being against God, sin assumes the quality of infinity. Naturally, the inquiry arises, Could God not have elected to save all? To the same end, another inquiry arises, Would He not have been justified in reprobating all? To all such questions, though sincere, no reply is possible. God is proved to be worthy of unquestioning trust, and assurance is given that He is doing what is best. That conclusion will be embraced by all when the task is done. In the one company, He is demonstrating His grace; in the other, His justice may be seen. The nonelect are judged for their demerit, while the elect, who are in every respect as unworthy, are made the objects of His grace.

One danger which may result from attending upon these themes and which must be due to human misunderstanding, is that the heart may, for the time, lose sight of the revelation that God is of infinite compassion, not desiring that any should perish, and because of that truth no person, no matter how sinful, who desires to be saved, need fail of that eternal grace. The invitation is to all. Nothing is more agreeable to God than the exercise of His grace.

Reason symphonizes with revelation in asserting that every part of God’s creation will serve a purpose, and revelation adds that it will redound to His glory; even the wrath of man shall praise Him (Ps. 76:10). Thus it is intimated that no evil shall go beyond the bounds of that which may in the end be to His glory. That the wicked may contribute to God’s final glory has been well stated in the Westminster Confession: “The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice” (chap. III, sec. VII).

3. Objections to the Doctrine of Divine Decree. Almost endless discussion has emerged over the doctrine of divine decree and its subdivision, predestination. The major disagreement between Calvinistic and Arminian systems centers at this point. No phase of the subject has been neglected and it is impractical, were it possible, to undertake in this work a review or analysis of these extended arguments. The usual theological library is replete with such material.

Concerning objections in general it may be said: Even reason in its unfallen state would not have been qualified to sit in judgment on supernatural revelation. How much less is fallen reason able so to do! The Holy Spirit has spoken, and the sovereign determination of God is as clearly asserted in the pages of the Bible as are any of the prerogatives of men. After all, what does man know about God or the issues involved in reaching those ends which infinite wisdom has predetermined? It ill becomes the wisest of men to speculate even on what God ought, or ought not, to do. Much that is written on these subjects is distinguished for its shocking irreverence. Objections to the doctrine of divine decree are usually in two classes, namely, (1) those which involve the moral character of God, and (2) those which involve the moral agency of man. Of the latter, no word will be added here beyond what has gone before.

a. THE JUSTICE OF GOD. Predestination, it is objected, represents God as a respecter of persons. He would be a respecter of persons if among those that were all deserving He saved some and passed by the remainder; but not one of all the fallen human race has within himself the ground of any claim upon God. Those He saves are saved without the slightest respect to human merit. God acts in saving grace as a sovereign and not as a judge. The Word of God, which so insistently states the absolute authority and freedom of God, also declares by the mouth of the Apostle Peter, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34, cf. Lev. 19:15). With immediate issues in view, men inquire why God caused any creature to exist whom He foreknew would be lost forever; but this question implies that God was free to create or not create, it also assumes that the welfare of each human being is the primary divine objective. Though such a supposition is the natural conclusion of a self-centered human being, it has little or no support from the Scriptures. The whole query penetrates far beyond the border of human understanding and can only tend to wrong thoughts concerning God.

b. THE LOVE OF GOD. It is challenged that since God is revealed as loving all men, He could consistently reprobate none. In an attempt to meet this assertion some Limited Redemptionists have taken the ground that God loves only the elect; but such a conclusion is evidently reached quite apart from the teachings of the Bible. It is not only contrary to the teaching of the Bible, but it dishonors God and hinders all freedom in gospel preaching. There is a real difficulty involved in this challenge; yet it is easily possible that, while having genuine and universal affection for all His creatures and desires for their good—which is the testimony of the Scriptures—, yet for greater reasons unrevealed to men, He does not gratify all His desires. Intelligent men repress their desires and affections in the interests of greater ends. Such action is as possible in the range of divine reason as it is in the range of human reason.

c. PREDESTINATION PREDETERMINES THAT MEN SHALL SIN. Such a revolting inference might on the surface seem to some minds to have a foundation. Already it has been pointed out that neither the Bible nor the consciousness of men ever accuses God of promoting sin; nor do the Scriptures retreat from the assuring averment that God has preordained all things which come to pass. Such a seeming contradiction is harmonized in God, if not in the mind of man. No more clarifying illustration of this seeming contradiction is to be found than is involved in the death of Christ and God’s eternal purpose in that death. God had determined that His Lamb should be slain and predicted that He would be slain at the hands of wicked men. His prediction even anticipated the very words these men would utter at the time of Christ’s death (Ps. 22:8). The manner of Christ’s death and the precise words of His executioners were not merely foreknown by a foresight which determines nothing. These wicked men did their deed and uttered their words under that necessity which predetermination imposes; but within the sphere of the consciousness of these men, they did precisely what they wanted to do without thought of necessity. They would have resented with vehemence any suggestion that they were fulfilling to the letter the most important decree of God. The strange harmony between predestination and human sin is asserted in Acts 2:23, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”

d. PREDESTINATION AND THE MEANS TO ITS ENDS. This objection inquires, Will the elect be saved whether they give their salvation concern and conform themselves to the truth or not? In reply it is stated that predestination includes all the required means and anticipates every step in reaching its ends. If the elect must be called and justified in order to be prepared for the glory, God asserts that He will attend to their call and their justification. The call will include the response of saving faith, which in its experimental exercise will be to each individual as the unaided action of his own free will. Having thus decreed human free will as a necessary step in the fulfilling of all His eternal purpose, it becomes as essential in the sight of God as any other link in the chain.

e. PREDESTINATION AND GOSPEL PREACHING. The objector questions (a) the need of a proclamation of the gospel to those that are elect, (b) the uselessness of it to the nonelect, and (c) the sincerity in the preaching of the gospel to the nonelect. The first issue has been answered in the preceding paragraph. Regarding the second issue, it may be stated that no man knows who are elect or who are not, therefore the divine instruction to the preacher is that he go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Concerning the question of divine sincerity in offering the gospel to those who are nonelect, it may be observed that one of the sins of the unsaved for which a just penalty rests upon them is the sin of rejection of Christ, or of unbelief. It is evident no rejection can be predicated of those who have not had the gospel presented unto them, and therefore have not actually refused it (Rom. 2:12).

f. PREDESTINATION AND FATALISM. The term fatalism may mean that all things are so predetermined by God that no human choice is possible or “that all events, including human choices, are absolutely determined in a mechanical way by their antecedent physical causes; physical determinism” (New Standard Dictionary, s.v.). This conception is gained whenever the sovereignty of God is stressed to the exclusion of the free action of men, or when God is left out of the reckoning and men imagine they are driven by blind forces over which they have no control. The most important choice the human heart can ever make is that of the acceptance of Christ as Savior, and the will of man alone is appealed to in this decision. If man is free in the realm of things most vital and eternal, it is to be supposed that He is equally free in matters of lesser import.

g. DIVINE DECREE AND HUMAN SUFFERING. This, the last of the objections to divine sovereignty to be examined, calls the wisdom and goodness of God in question in view of the suffering and death which is in the world. A theodicy is indicated, that is, a defense of the worthiness of God in the face of all the distress and agony that is in the world. Much that has gone before in this discussion has been to the one end that God may be vindicted against the conclusions of human misunderstanding. The contents of any theodicy will naturally be determined by the number of problems presented for consideration. Only the problem of human suffering remains in this inventory. This issue has been before the race since the days of Job. Men have been perplexed, not only by the presence of human suffering in the world where God who is infinite goodness reigns, but by the fact that often the wicked prosper while the godly languish in suffering and loss. As recorded in Psalm 73, the writer of the Psalm testifies that he was “plagued, and chastened” every morning as he beheld the prosperity of the wicked. It was not until he went into the sanctuary that he understood their end. God has revealed Himself to His own in the world. They are able to rise above the present distress because of the surpassing assurance with which their knowledge of God enriches them.

Suffering may be as a discipline for the saint or as a penalty upon the sinner (1 Pet. 3:17). In either case there is but one Hand that bestows—He who never errs or fails—He who can be and should be trusted implicitly—He who out of this midnight of evil will yet bring forth His own righteousness as the noonday. Suffering is a means which God employs to the realization of His most perfect will. He is never wrong; He is never mistaken. “Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (1 Pet. 4:12–16). Even Christ with all His perfection was not spared suffering. It is written: “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin” (1 Pet. 4:1).

Writing on the general theme of objections to the doctrine of divine decree and with a word of timely warning, Dr. John Dick states:

It can serve no great purpose to muster up objections against the infallibility of the Divine decrees, or the responsibility of man; to listen to them when proposed by others; to revolve them in our minds; to perplex ourselves with attempts to answer them, and to allow ourselves to be disquieted and to doubt because our endeavours are not successful. Although we should prove to our satisfaction, as many have done to theirs, that the decrees of God are not absolute, or that man is not free, all that we have gained is, to confirm our minds in the belief of a falsehood; for both doctrines must be true, as they are expressly declared in the Scriptures. To their authority let us bow; and by their decision let us regulate our thoughts and our conduct. If we still oppose our reasonings to their dictates, we must take our course; but let us beware lest we dispute ourselves into infidelity or atheism, and seek a refuge from our doubts in the rejection of revelation, because it inculcates truths which to us appear contradictory, or in the cheerless conclusion, that we live in a fatherless world, where chance bears sway, that man is the phantom of an hour, the sport of accident and passion, and that, as he knows not whence he came, so he cannot tell whither he is going. In opposition to this comfortless and impious conclusion, let us hold fast the creed which is consonant to reason as well as to revelation, that the Supreme Being manages the affairs of the universe which he created; that all creatures are dependent upon him, and all events are subject to his control: that while good men obey him from choice, the wrath and wayward passions of the bad are subservient to his design; that, while his almighty power bends them to his purpose, he is a moral Governor and Judge, whose righteousness will be displayed in punishing transgressors, even for those actions which were the means of executing his own decrees.—Lectures on Theology, p. 195

4. Major Manifestations of the Divine Decree. Various major manifestations of divine decree should be noted specifically:

a. CREATION. The Biblical account of creation declares that of His own free will and not of necessity, and by an act rather than by a process, God created from nothing all things that exist. A distinction is indicated between the revelation that a sufficient cause, in the Person of the Eternal God, created all things from nothing, and the atheistic notion that matter is either eternal or self-evolved. The phrase creatio prima seu immediata denotes that form of creation which brought all necessary elements into existence. The phrase creatio secunda seu mediata denotes a subsequent act of God by which He brought order and form out of the chaos which followed the original creation. This is the order of events as set forth in the opening verses of the Bible. There are three general attitudes toward the Biblical account of creation, namely, (a) that it is only allegorical, (b) that it is the basis for a spiritualizing process of teaching, and (c) that it is historical. The last-named attitude is the only one which conforms to the narrative as given in Genesis and to the upwards of fifty subsequent statements in all the Sacred Text (cf. Ps. 33:6; 148:5). Throughout the Bible, God is honored as the sovereign Creator, and all things created are absolutely dependent upon Him (cf. Neh. 9:6; Acts 17:28; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11). The Bible also asserts that God existed before the things which He created (cf. Ps. 90:2; John 17:5, 24). The Bible as clearly assigns the work of creation to each of the three Persons of the God-head separately—to the Father (1 Cor. 8:6); to the Son (John 1:3; Col. 1:16, 17; Heb. 1:10–12); to the Spirit (Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13; 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 104:29, 30; Isa. 40:13); and to God—Elohim, the plural name (Gen. 1:1, 26).

It remains to be observed that since God alone was in existence before the creation of the universe, He must have created all things for His own pleasure and so that He who is worthy might be glorified.

b. THE PROGRAM OF THE AGES. The unrestrained, sovereign purpose of God is seen in the ordering of the succession of the ages. That God has a program of the ages is disclosed in many passages (cf. Deut. 30:1–10; Dan. 2:31–45; 7:1–28; 9:24–27; Hos. 3:4, 5; Matt. 23:37–25:46; Acts 15:13–18; Rom. 11:13–29; 2 Thess. 2:1–12; Rev. 2:1–22:21). Likewise, there are well-defined periods of time related to the divine purpose. The Apostle Paul writes of the period between Adam and Moses (Rom. 5:14); John speaks of the law as given by Moses, but of grace and truth as coming by Christ (John 1:17). Christ also speaks of the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24), which are evidently to be distinguished from Jewish “times and seasons” (Acts 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:1). Likewise, He spoke of a hitherto unannounced period between His two advents and indicated its distinctive features (Matt. 13:1–51), and predicted a yet future time of “great tribulation” and defined its character (Matt. 24:9–31). There are “last days” for Israel (Isa. 2:1–5) as well as “last days” for the Church (2 Tim. 3:1–5). The Apostle John anticipates a period of one thousand years and relates this to the reign of Christ, at which time the Church, His bride, will reign with Him (Rev. 20:1–6). That Christ will sit on the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob forever is declared by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:31–33), and that there will be an ever abiding new heaven and new earth is as clearly revealed (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1). In Hebrews 1:1, 2 a sharp contrast is drawn between “time past” when God spoke to the fathers by the prophets and “these last days” when He is speaking unto us by His Son. Similarly, it is clearly disclosed that there are ages past (Eph. 3:5; Col. 1:26), the present age (Rom. 12:2; Gal. 1:4) and the age, or ages, to come (Eph. 2:7; Heb. 6:5; note Eph. 1:10, where the future age is termed the dispensation—οἰκονομία—of the fullness—πλήρωμα—of times—καιρός).

The use of αἰῶνας in Hebrews 1:2 and 11:3 with its almost universal reference to time, either bounded or unbounded, is of particular significance as bearing on the divine arrangements of time-periods. The former with ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας and the latter with κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας have been much disputed. Dean Alford states: “The main classes of interpreters are two. (1) Those who see in the word its ordinary meaning of an ‘age of time’; (2) those who do not recognize such meaning, but suppose it to have been merged in that of ‘the world,’ or ‘the worlds.’ To (1) belong the Greek Fathers; and some others. On the other hand, (2) is the view of the majority of Commentators” (N.T. for English Readers, Vol. II, Part II, p. 599). In several passages, including the two in question, Vincent declares αἰῶνας to refer to “the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world.” The word, he states, “means a period of time Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come” (Word Studies, IV, 59).

Considering the accepted meaning of αἰῶνας, the natural interpretation of the passage in question is that God did by Christ arrange the successive periods, far beyond καιρός within χρόνος, extending indeed to things eternal or from everlasting to everlasting. This interpretation held, according to Alford, by the Greek Fathers, though not free from difficulties, is of more than passing import to those who do discern the fact, force, and fruition of God’s time-periods.

c. PRESERVATION. This form of divine activity is but the continuous working of God by which He maintains and consummates the objects of His creation. The doctrine of preservation answers the claim of Deistic philosophy, and asserts that the sovereign decree of God will be perfected forever (cf. Neh. 9:6; Ps. 36:6; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2, 3).

d. PROVIDENCE. Again, God is revealed in providence as the sovereign One who, that His eternal purposes may be revealed, molds all events both moral and physical. While preservation continues the existence of things, providence directs their progress. It extends to all the works of God. Dr. A. A. Hodge thus explains Biblical providence:

God having from eternity absolutely decreed whatsoever comes to pass, and having in the beginning created all things out of nothing by the word of his power, and continuing subsequently constantly present to every atom of his creation, upholding all things in being and in the possession and exercise of all their properties, he also continually controls and directs the actions of all his creatures thus preserved, so that while he never violates the law of their several natures, he yet infallibly causes all actions and events singular and universal to occur according to the eternal and immutable plan embraced in his decree. There is a design in providence. God has chosen his great end, the manifestation of his own glory, but in order to that end he has chosen innumberable sub-ordinate ends; these are fixed; and he has appointed all actions and events in their several relations as means to those ends; and he continually so directs the actions of all creatures that all these general and special ends are brought to pass precisely at the time, by the means, and in the mode and under the conditions, which he from eternity proposed.—Outlines of Theology, p. 262

The doctrine of providence may be extended to embrace nearly all that enters into both naturalistic and Biblical theism. It falls naturally into a fourfold division: (a) preventative (cf. Gen. 20:6; Ps. 19:13): God uses parents, governments, laws, customs, public opinion, His Word, His Spirit, and conscience as means to a providential impediment to evil. The Spirit, the Word, and prayer avail much for the Christian; (b) permissive, which embraces that which God does not restrain (cf. Deut. 8:2; 2 Chron. 32:31; Hos. 4:17; Rom. 1:24, 28); (c) directive, by which action God guides the ways of men and often outside their consciousness of that guidance (cf. Gen. 50:20; Ps. 76:10; Isa. 10:5: John 13:27; Acts 4:28); (d) determinative, by which action of God He decides and executes all things after the counsel of His own will.

The providence of God so combines with human freedom that, though the ways of God are sure, it is in no sense fatalism. Likewise, the providence of God is the opposite of chance. The divine care reaches to the least detail of life as well as to its greater aspects. Certain attributes of God demand the exercise of His providence. His justice prompts Him to secure all moral good; His benevolence prompts Him to care for His own; His immutability insures that what He has begun He will complete; and His power is sufficient to execute all His desire.

e. PRAYER. Though God conditions certain actions of His own on prayer, it does not follow that those things thus conditioned are uncertain. This, again, is the problem of the divine and human wills being combined in such a way as to realize the precise divine purpose through the free choice of men. Efficacious prayer is to the glory of the Father (John 14:13), in the name of the Son (John 14:14), and in the enabling power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:26, 27). Compliance with these conditions insures that the human will is in agreement with the divine will. Transforming things, mighty indeed, are wrought by prayer, but only such things as comport with the will and purpose of God. Why, then, should prayer be offered? Only because of the fact that the divine purpose, which the answer to prayer represents, includes the prayer feature. It is as much decreed that it shall be done in answer to prayer as it is decreed that it shall be done at all. “We must add to this that true prayer is not merely human, but sustained and carried on by the Divine Spirit as the Spirit of prayer, and that it has to such an extent a prophetic character, in which the Providence of God is one with the presentiment of man. Hence the sealing of prayer by the Amen.… Prayer comes forth from the eternal freedom of the child, and goes back to the eternal freedom of the Father” (Lange, cited by Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, I, 350).

f. MIRACLES. That in the physical world which surpasses all known human or moral powers and is therefore ascribed to supernatural agencies is called miracle. It is a sufficient power acting outside the range of natural causes and effects. But miracles do not imply that God has introduced something unforeseen in His eternal purpose, for the miracle, like all else, is included in His eternal Plan. Miracles are such only as viewed by men; to God they are but extraordinary events in the providence of God. Though miracles are wonders (Acts 2:19) in the eyes of men and display the power of God, their true purpose is that of a “sign” (Matt. 12:38: John 2:18). They certify and authenticate a teacher or his doctrine. For this reason false doctrine has always resorted to supposed supernatural occurrences to establish its claims. Satan is accredited with miraculous power (2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:13–15). Since the Word of God has been written in its perfection and preserved, there is no further need of signs. The present need is the guidance of the Spirit into all truth, which ministry is provided for all who will yield themselves to Him.

g. GRACE. Though many objectives are disclosed, the supreme purpose of God in creation seems to be the demonstration of His grace. The manifestation of divine grace as it is in Christ (Titus 2:11) and as it will be displayed by the redeemed in glory (Eph. 2:7), is not only within the divine decree, but is a major feature of that decree.

Conclusion

As intimated at the beginning of this discussion on the doctrine of divine decree, the secret things of God cannot be solved by any finite mind. As much has been attempted as becomes any man, namely, some unnecessary misunderstandings have been examined; and if the problems have been relieved to that extent, the work is not in vain.

In concluding the translation of about sixty-five pages on the decree of God and predestination by Hermann Venema in his Institutes of Theology, the translator—Rev. Alex. W. Brown—writes a comment which may well serve as a concluding observation to what has here been written on this so difficult division of theology:

After the lengthy and ingenious discussion by the author on the subject of predestination, we confess we feel ourselves just where we were. In attempting to reconcile the doctrine of election with the universality of the Gospal offer and with the expressed unwillingness of God that men should perish; he has only shifted the difficulty, he has not removed it. The fact is, they are hopelessly irreconcilable in our present state, and those who have made the attempt had much better have left it alone. It is a truth revealed in Scripture that all who are or who shall be saved are and shall be so in consequence of the eternal purpose of God, in other words, that all believers are elected persons, chosen in Christ before the world began, and that none will believe in Christ and be made partakers of his salvation except those who are the subjects of this divine purpose or decree. It is also revealed in Scripture that there is a divine purpose in regard to those who are not elected or chosen. It is impossible, we think, to admit the one without admitting the other. Election is an act of mind on the part of God in regard to some—reprobation or preterition or whatever other name may be employed is also an act of mind on the part of God in regard to others—he refused to choose them. Do we read for instance that the names of some were written in the book of life? we read also that the names of others were not so written. Do we find some spoken of as vessels of mercy prepared afore unto glory? we find others spoken of as vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. Is it said that some were chosen in Christ before the world began? it is also said that others were of old ordained to condemnation, who stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed. Now we must take God’s word as we find it and receive its statements as true with whatever difficulties the reception of them may be attended. We may not be able to see how the existence of these decrees can consist with human liberty and responsibility or with the justice and goodness of God. But the fact, is, we have nothing whatever to do with the reconciling of these apparently contrary things. That is God’s province, not ours. If we find both clearly revealed, we are bound to receive both. Our reason must be silent before this and every other mystery contained in his word. It must be treated just as Zacharias was treated by the angel. When the priest to whom he communicated the glad news of the birth of a son, asked “Whereby shall I know this?” the angel stops his mouth; “Behold,” says he, “thou shalt be dumb.” Just as Hagar, while obedient to Sarah, was entertained as a servant, but when she usurped and contradicted and would not submit was expelled from the household of Abraham, so reason as long as it is subject to revelation is to be kindly entertained as a useful handmaid, but the moment it begins to oppose faith is to be abandoned and cast out as giving law to one who is invested with an authority to which it should meekly and willingly submit. The duty devolving upon those who preach and hear the Gospel in regard to this difficulty is plain. The doctrines of election and reprobation are to be believed because God has revealed them. But in delivering the message of mercy the preacher has nothing whatever to do with them—he must proclaim that message as if there were no such things in existence, and no more allow them to interfere with his presenting to all the offer of a free and full salvation in Christ, than the physician would in discharging the duties of his profession. There is predestination in the latter case as well as in the former—a predestination that embraces both the end and the means. Some are appointed to die, others to recover. But he deals with all, as if his skill in every case were to be followed with success. The same holds true in regard to those who hear the Gospel. The fact that God has chosen some to eternal life and passed by the rest should not be allowed to interfere with the duty that devolves upon them to seek to be saved, any more than the fact of God’s decrees extending to all the ordinary occupations of life should interfere in any degree with the attention they should give to these. Their rule of duty in both cases is not what God has purposed but what God has said. All events are foreordained—those which relate to their temporal as well as those which relate to their spiritual condition. But just as, without taking into consideration the fact that the day and hour of their death are fixed before which they will not leave the world, and beyond which all their efforts cannot carry them, they nevertheless labour as strenuously as if the preservation of their life depended solely upon their own exertion; in the same way, without seeking to pry into the mysteries of God’s government in spiritual matters, they should render submission to the statement “he that believeth shall be saved”, and labour as diligently in the use of means that salvation in this way may be theirs as if success depended wholly upon themselves. Let them give all diligence to prove their calling by closing with the offer of mercy held out to them and by striving to do the will of their heavenly Father, and then they may rest assured of their election.—Pp. 334–35