The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation

on
oy
4
:
’

“i
8
,
3
‘

God the Father in Salvation we examined seven pasgeeea Sages which represent Him as making a choice from among the children of men and predestinating certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son. The thoughtful reader will naturally ask, And what of those who were not “ordained to eternal life?’ The answer which is usually returned to this question, even by those who profess to believe what the Scriptures teach concerning God’s Sovereignty, is, that God passes by the non-elect, leaves them alone to go their own way, and in the end casts them into the Lake of Fire because they refuse His way, and rejected the Saviour of His providing. But this is only a part of the truth: the other part — that which is most offensive to the carnal mind — is either ignored or denied.

In view of the awful solemnity of the subject here before us, in view of the fact that today almost all — even those who profess to be Calvinists — reject and repudiate this doctrine, and in view of the liklihood that this is one of the points in our book which is calculated to raise the most controversy, we feel that an extended enquiry into this aspect of God’s Truth is demanded. That this branch of the subject of God’s Sovereignty is profoundly mysterious we freely allow, yet, that is no reason why we should reject it. The trouble is that, nowadays, there are so many who receive the testimony of God only so far as they can satisfactorily account for all the reasons and grounds of His conduct, which means they will accept nothing but that which can be measured in the petty scales of their own limited capacities.

Wl fi the last chapter when treating of the Sovereignty of

Stating it in its baldest form the point now to be considered is, Has God fore-ordained certain ones to damnation? That many will be eternally damned is clear from Scripture, that each one will be judged according to his works and reap as he has sown, and that in consequence his “damnation is just” (Rom. 3:8), is equally sure, and that God decreed that the none-elect should choose the course they follow we now undertake to prove. Writing to the saints at Thessalonica the apostle declares “For God hath not appointed us to wrath:” this statement is utterly pointless if God has not “appointed” any to wrath. To say that God hath not appointed us to wrath implies there are some He has appointed to wrath, and if it were not that our minds were blinded by prejudice we.could not fail to see this clearly.

Now all will acknowledge that from the foundation of the world God cértainly fore-knew and fore-saw who would and who would not accept Christ as their Saviour, therefore in giving being and birth to those He knew would reject Christ He necessarily created them unto damnation. All that can be said in reply to this is, No, while God did foreknow these ones would reject Christ yet He did not decree that they should, neither did He do anything to make them reject Christ. But this is a begging of the real question at issue. God had a definite reason why He created men, a specific purpose why He created this and that individual, and in view of the eternal destination of His creatures He purposed either that this one should spend eternity in Heaven or that this one should spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. If then He foresaw that in creating a certain person that person would despise and reject the Saviour, yet knowing this beforehand He, nevertheless, brought that person into existence, then it is clear He designed and ordained that that person should be eternally lost. Again; faith is God’s gift, and the purpose to give it only to some, involves the purpose not to give it to others. Without faith there is no salvation — “He that believeth not shall be damned” — hence if there were some of Adam’s descendants to whom He purposed not to give faith it must be because He ordained that they should be damned.

Above we have stated the Doctrine of Reprobation in its baldest form and at this point it is necessary to make a few remarks so as to safeguard it against false conclusions. The way in which this truth is presented in Scripture is not merely that God created men either to damn or save them, but that He created them for His own glory — “The Lord hath made all things for Himself’ — and glorified in man He will be, if not in one way, then in another. In the salvation of the elect it is His grace which will be magnified; in the damnation of the non-elect it is His justice which will be exemplified. Again; it is not that God made man wicked in order to damn him: “God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions” (Ecc. 7:29). God has not created sinful beings in order to damn them, for God is not to be charged with the sin of His creatures, The responsibility and criminality is man’s. Yet, as intimated above, God did create Adam knowing that he would fall, and that in consequence his posterity would enter this world as sinners, and that the majority of them would prefer sin to holiness; so that God created the human race fore-seeing that the greater part of it would be lost, hence that He joreordained the eternal damnation of these ones is a conclusion from which there is no escape.

In the Westminister Confession it is said, “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably fore-ordain whatsoever comes to pass”. The late F. W. Grant — a most careful and cautious student and writer — commenting on these words said: “It is perfectly, divinely true, that God hath ordained for His own glory whatsoever comes to pass.” Now if these statements are true, is not the doctrine of Reprobation established by them? What, in human history, is the one thing which does come to pass every day? What, but that men and women die, pass out of this world into a hopeless eternity, an eternity of suffering and woe. If then God has fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass then He must have decreed that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved to suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire. Admitting the general premise, is not the specific conclusion inevitable?

In the body of our book we have shown that the word “know” and its cognates when applied to God in the Scriptures have reference not to His prescience but to His knowledge of approbation. For example, when we read in Rom. 11:2 “God hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew” (Israel) the word “fore-knew” must signify His people whom He had chosen to be the objects of His love (See Deut. 7:7,8). In view then of this meaning of the word, consider Matt. 7:23. In the day of judgment the Lord will say to many “I never knew you.” It is not that He says “I know you not”, but “I never knew you’’ — you were never the objects of My approbation. Contrast with this “I know My sheep, and am known of Mine” (John 10:14) ee sheep, His elect, He does “know”, but the reprobate, the non-elect, He “knows” not — no, not even before the foundation of the world did He know them — He “NEVER” knew them. But we shall turn now from incidental references to Reprobation and consider the one passage where the doctrine is expounded at length.

It is a general principle in God’s Word to reserve the treatment of any important topic for one principal examination. For example, there are many passages in the New Testament which make mention of Justification by Faith, but in Romans 4 the doctrine is treated of at length once for all. Again; there are repeated references to our Lord’s coming again for His people, but only in I Thess. 4 do we find this entered into fully. Likewise, there are interspersed throughout the Word frequent mentionings of the Final Judgment — the judgment of the wicked — but only in Rev. 20 have we a detailed description of it. So it is with the Doctrine of God’s Sovereignty in its application both to the elect and the reprobate: many are the passages which make mention of these, but only once is the whole subject entered into at length; that passage is found in Rom. 9, and to it we now turn.

It would be beside our present purpose to attempt a detailed exposition of the entire chapter: the portion we shall now examine is that which is germane to our immediate theme. The whole chapter is concerned with the Sovereignty of God. Beginning with God’s sovereign dealings with Israel, the apostle shows that the principles which govern His ways with them operate also in His disposition of the entire human race.

V 7. “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall Thy seed be called.” God’s sovereignty was thus displayed in His passing by Ishmael and his descendants and calling Isaac and his seed. Both Ishmael and Isaac were sons of Abraham, but one was taken and the other left.

Vv 10-13. “And not only this; but when Rebecca also had concewved by one, even by our father Isaac, (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’. God’s sovereignty is here seen in connection with the sons of

Isaac — Jacob is loved, Esau is hated. The question is then raised “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?” The apostle here anticipates the usual objection of the carnal mind. Does not loving Jacob and hating Esau before they had done any good or evil imply that there is injustice in God? It is particularly to be noted that the objection which the apostle here meets fires the meaning of the language employed in the previous verses! The force of the objection is, Is it just for God to love one who has done no good, and to hate one who has done no evil? If the words “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” are to be explained away in the manner so many now do, then such an objection as the apostle here meets would be quite’ irrelevant. How then does the apostle dispose of the objection?

Attempts have often been made by Arminian theologians and their disciples to show that the reference here in Romans 9 :10-13 has respect only to national and temporal blessings, and that spiritual blessing, salvation, is not here in view. Such a subterfuge has frequently been exposed, but for the benefit of those of our readers who have not access to it we quote from the work of one who has conclusively proven how baseless this theory ts:

“The point then to be proved is that Paul speaks of Jacob’s election not only to temporal blessings, but also to salvation.

“The first proof is, that the whole tenor and strain of the apostle’s argument in Romans has chief reference to the justification and salvation of individual sinners. Consequently, to divert his discourse concerning election, which is a constituent element of that argument, into another direction, is to wrench it from its track.

“The second proof is, that in the immedidte context Paul treats of the promise made by God to Abraham’s children, and he shows that Jacob was constituted an heir of that

promise by Divine election. To say this illustrious promise guaranteed, exclusively or even chiefly, temporal blessings, is to eviscerate the Scriptures of their meaning. Paul’s argument concerning the promise in Galatians as well as in Romans would be contradicted. The promise concerned spiritual and saving blessings. To take any other view is to strip the Old Testament of its evangelical element and reduce the New Testament of it to absurdity. Jacob, therefore, was elected to share in the promise of salvation; that is, aS a promised salvation is not an earned salvation he was elected to salvation.

“The third proof is, that the apostle expressly distinguishes between the natural and the spiritual seed of Abraham. It is only the latter, argues he, who are the children of God. In immediate connection with this he introduces the cases of Jacob and Esau as illustrative of that distinction. Both were the carnal descendants of Abraham, but only Jacob, of the two, was one of his spiritual children, and therefore one of the children of God. How was he constituted such? Not by natural descent, but by God’s election of him irrespectively of his works. Jacob’s election was therefore to adoption into God’s family, and, as God never loses any of -His adopted children, to eternal life’ (J. L. Girardeau, Columbia Theological Seminary, S. C.)

Vv 15,16. “God forbid: For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy”. The meaning of these words is very simple. God cannot deal unjustly. But He can and does bestow His favors on whom He pleases, for He is sovereign, saying, “I will have mercy on whom J will have mercy”. The question asked in v 14 would not have been raised unless Paul had wished himself to be understood as teaching that God chose and loved Jacob and rejected and hated Esan for no assignable reason outside of His own will. Hence, when it is said God loved Jacob for no good in him and hated Esau for no evil in him, man’s carnal mind concludes an injustice has been done. Mark carefully, then, the ground on which the apostle here rests his dental that there is unrighteousness with God. He offers no apology for his doctrine, nor does he attempt any defense for God! Instead, he appeals to the testimony of God to Moses. These words of Jehovah to Moses set forth precisely the same truth as that which the apostle had expressed above in connection with Jacob and Esau. The connection and argument are obvious. It is not unjust when God exercises His sovereignty for He expressly claims this very right. Jehovah’s words to Moses were a formal declaration of a divine prerogative. If then God affirms His right to exercise His sovereignty it cannot be wrong for Him to do so, seeing there is no unrighteousness in God.

V 17. “For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth.’ These words refer us back to vs 13 and 14. In v 13 God’s love to Jacob and His hatred to Esau are declared. Inv. 14 it is asked “Is there unrighteousness with God?” and here in v 17 the apostle continues his reply to the objection. We cannot do better now than quote from Calvin’s comments upon this verse. “There are here two things to be considered, — the predestination of Pharaoh to ruin which is to be referred to the past and yet the hidden counsel of God, — and then, the design of this, which was to make known the name of God. As many interpreters, striving to modify this passage, pervert it, we must first observe, that for the word ‘I have raised thee up’, or stirred up, in the Hebrew is, ‘I have appointed’, by which it appears, that God, designing to show that the contumacy of Pharaoh would not prevent Him to deliver His people, not only affirms that his fury had been foreseen by Him, and that He had prepared means for restraining it, but that He had also thus designedly ordained it and indeed for this end, — that He might exhibit a more illustrious evidence of His own power.” It will be observed that Calvin gives as the force of the Hebrew word which Paul renders ‘For this purpose have I raised thee up’ — “I have appointed”. As this is the word on which the doctrine and argument of the verse turns we would further point out that in making this quotation from Ex. 9 :16 the apostle significantly departs from the Septuagint — the version then in common use and from which he most frequently quotes — and substitutes a clause for the first that is given by the Septuagint: instead of “On this account thou hast been preserved”, he gives “For this very end have I raised thee up”!

But we must now consider in more detail the case of Pharaoh which sums up in concrete example the great controversy between man and his Maker. “For now I will stretch out My hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power; and that My name may be declared throughout all the earth” (Exodus 9:15,16). Upon these words we offer the following comments:

First, we know from Exodus 14 and 15 that Pharaoh was - “cut off”, that he was cut off by God, that he was cut off in the very midst of his wickedness, that he was cut off not by sickness nor by the infirmities which are incident to old age, nor by what men term an accident, but cut off by the 1mmedtate hand of God in judgment.

Second, it is clear that God raised up Pharaoh for this very end — to “cut him off,” which in the language of the

New Testament means “destroyed.’’ God never does anything without a previous design. In giving him being, in preserving him through infancy and childhood, in raising him to the throne of Egypt, God had one end in view. That such was God’s purpose is clear from His words to Moses before he went down to Egypt to demand of Pharaoh that Jehovah’s people should be allowed to go a three days’ journey into the wilderness to worship Him — ‘And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go” (Exodus 4:21). But not only so, God’s design and purpose was declared long before this. Four hundred years previously God had said to Abraham ‘Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs’, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge’ (Gen. 15:13, 14). From these words it is evident (a nation and its king being looked at as one in the O. T.) that God’s purpose was formed long before He gave Pharaoh being.

Third, an examination of God’s dealings with Pharaoh makes it clear that Egypt’s king was indeed a “vessel of wrath fitted to destruction.” Placed on Egypt’s throne, with the reigns of government in his hands, he sat as head of the nation which occupied the first rank among the peoples of the world. There was no other monarch on earth able to control or dictate to Pharaoh. To such a dizzy height did God raise this reprobate, and such a course was a natural and necessary step to prepare him for his final fate, for it is a Divine axiom that “pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Further, — and this is deeply important to note and highly significant — God removed from Pharaoh the one outward restraint which was calculated to act as a check upon him. The bestowing upon Pharaoh of the unlimited powers of a king was setting him above all legal influence and control. But besides this God removed Moses from his presence and kingdom. Had Moses, who not only was skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians but also had been reared in Pharaoh’s household, been suffered to remain in close proximity to the throne, there can be no doubt but that his example and influence had been a powerful check upon the king’s wickedness and tyranny. This, though not the only cause, was plainly one reason why God sent Moses into Midian, for it was during his absence that Egypt’s inhuman king framed his most cruel edicts. God designed by removing this restraint to give Pharaoh full opportunity to fill up the full measure of his sins and ripen himself for his fully-deserved but predestined ruin.

Fourth, God “hardened” his heart as He declared He would (Ex. 4:21). This is in full accord with the declarations of Holy Scripture — “The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord’ (Prov. 16:1); “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water, He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Prov. 21:1). Like all other kings, Pharaoh’s heart was in the hand of the Lord; and God had both the right and the power to turn it whithersoever He pleased. And it pleased Him to turn it against all good. God determined to hinder Pharaoh from granting his request through Moses to let Israel go, until He had fully prepared him for his final overthrow, and because nothing short of this would fully fit him, God hardened his heart.

Finally, it is worthy of careful consideration to note how the vindication of God in His dealings with Pharaoh has been fully attested. Most remarkable it is to discover that we have Pharaoh’s own testimony in favor of God and against himself! In Exodus 9:15 and 16 we learn how God had told Pharaoh for what purpose He had raised him up, and in verse 27 of the same chapter we are told that Pharaoh said, “I have sinned this time: the Lord 1s righteous, and and my people are wicked.” Mark that this was said by Pharaoh after he knew that God had raised him up in order to “cut him off”, after his severe judgments had been sent upon him, after he had hardened his own heart. By this time Pharaoh was fairly ripened for judgment and fully prepared to decide whether God had injured him or whether he had sought to injure God; and he fully acknowledges that he had “sinned” and that God was “righteous”. Again; we have the witness of Moses who was fully acquainted with God’s conduct toward Pharaoh. He had heard at the beginning what was God’s design in connection with Pharaoh, he had witnessed God’s dealings with him; he had observed his “long-sufferance” toward this vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and at last he had beheld him cut off in Divine judgment at the Red Sea. How then is Moses imprest? Does he raise the cry of injustice? Does he dare to charge God with unrighteousness? Far from it. Instead, he says “Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders!” (Exodus 15:11).

Was Moses moved by a vindictive spirit as he saw Israel’s arch-enemy “cut off” by the waters of the Red Sea? Surely not. But to remove forever all doubt upon this score, it remains to be pointed out how that saints in heaven, after they have witnessed the sore judgments of God, join in singing “the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb saying, Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of Nations” (Rev. 15:3). Here then is the climax, and the full and final vindication of God’s dealings with Pharaoh. Saints in heaven join in singing the Song of Moses, in which that servant of God celebrated Jehovah’s praise in overthrowing Pharaoh and his hosts, declaring that in so acting God was not unrighteous but just and true. We must believe, therefore, that the Judge of all the earth did right in creating and destroying this vessel of wrath, Pharaoh.

The case of Pharaoh establishes the principle and illustrates the doctrine of Reprobation. If God actually reprobated Pharaoh we may justly conclude that He reprobates all others whom He did not predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son. This inference the apostle Paul manifestly draws from the fate of Pharaoh, for in Romans g, after referring to God’s purpose in raising up Pharaoh, he continues, “therefore’. The case of Pharaoh is introduced to prove the doctrine of Reprobation as the counterpart of the doctrine of Election.

In conclusion, we would say that in forming Pharaoh God displayed neither justice nor injustice, but only His bare sovereignty. As the potter is sovereign in forming vessels, so God is sovereign in forming moral agents.

V 18. “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth’. The “therefore” announces the general conclusion which the apostle draws from all he had said in the three preceding verses in denying that God was unrighteous in loving Jacob and hating Esau, and specifically it applies the principle exemplified in God’s dealings with Pharaoh. It traces everything back to the sovereign will of the Creator. He loves one and hates another, He exercises mercy toward some and hardens others, without reference to anything save His own sovereign pleasure.

That which is most repellant to the carnal mind in the above verse is the reference to hardening — ‘Whom He will He hardeneth’’ — and it is just here that so many commentators and expositors have adulterated the truth. The most common view is that the apostle is speaking of nothing more than judicial hardening, i.e., a forsaking by God because these subjects of His displeasure had first rejected His truth and forsaken Him. Those who contend for this interpretation appeal to such scriptures as Romé 1 :19-26 — “God gave them up’, that is (see context) those who “knew God” yet glorified Him not as God (v 21). Appeal is also made to 2 Thess. 2:10-12. But it is to be noted that the word “harden” does not occur in.either of these passages. But further. We submit that Rom. 9:18 has no reference whatever to judicial “hardening”. The apostle is not there speaking of those who had already turned their backs on God’s truth, but instead, he is dealing with God’s Sovereignty, God’s sovereignty as seen not only in showing mercy to whom He wills, but also in hardening whom He pleases. The exact words are “Whom He will’ — not “all who have rejected His truth’ — ‘“He hardeneth”, and this coming immediately after the mention of Pharaoh clearly fixes their meaning. The case of Pharaoh is clear enough, though man by his glosses has done his best to hide the truth. In Exodus we read both of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, and of Pharaoh hardening his own heart. But which is mentioned first? Ex. 4:21 tells us “And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go”. Before Moses goes down into Egypt at all, God declares that He will harden the heart of its monarch. But man invariably reverses God’s order: Pharaoh hardened his heart because God had first hardened it, and not vice versa as we are asked to believe by men.

As this reference to God’s hardening whom He wills is so much misunderstood today, we would examine it all the more carefully. We have already pointed out that the verse in which this is mentioned (18) opens with the word ‘“‘Therefore” thus connecting it with and drawing a conclusion from what precedes. In v 13 the apostle had said God had loved Jacob and hated Esau, and that for nothing in themselves personally. This declaration drew forth the question, Is there unrighteousness with God? and it is this question the apostle is still answering when he affirms, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth”. Hence we insist that to regard the word “harden” as signifying judicial obduration would be altogether trrelevant to the point under discussion. The apostle is treating of God’s Sovereignty as displayed in His dealings with His creatures. He shows that there is nothing in them which causes Him to act as He does, for in the case of Jacob and Esau their destiny was decided before they were born and before they had done any good or evil. Therefore, to say that the apostle’s words “Whom He will He hardeneth” signify He hardens those who have rejected His truth would be to find a cause in the creature for the basis of His actions instead of tracing them back to His own sovereign will! Moreover: that “hardening” in Rom. 9:18 does not refer to judicial obduration is further evidenced from the fact that understood thus the evident antithesis of the verse would be destroyed. The hardening is contrasted with the showing mercy. “Hardening” here must signify to treat with severity. 1.e., in withholding favors and inflicting deserved punishments. A parallel antithesis is found in Rom. 11:22 where God’s goodness and severity are contrasted — “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God”. “Whom He wills He treats kindly — by having mercy on them which do not deserve it; and ‘whom He wills He treats severely’; not unjustly, but severely, in comparison with those He treats kindly; He treats them severely, in not bestowing on them mercy and in punishing them when and how He pleases.”

(J. Brown, D. D., Professor of Exegetical Theology to the United Presbyterian Church — 1857).

V 18. “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth’. This affirmation of God’s sovereign “hardening” of sinners’ hearts — in contradistinction from judicial hardening — is not alone. Mark the language of John 12:37-40, “But though He had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him: that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe (why?), because that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts (why? Because they had refused to believe on Christ? This is the popular belief, but mark the answer of Scripture) that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” Now, reader, it is just a question as to whether or not you will believe what God has revealed in His Word. It is not a matter of prolonged searching or profound study, but a childlike spirit which is needed in order to understand this doctrine.

V 19 “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?” Is not this the very objection which is urged today? The force of the apostle’s questions here seem to be this: Since everything is dependent on God’s will, which is irreversible, and since this will of God, according to which He can do everything as sovereign — since He can have mercy on whom He wills to have mercy, and can refuse mercy and inflict punishment on whom He chooses to do so — why does He not will to have mercy on all, so as to make them obedient, and thus put finding of fault out of court? Now it should be particularly noted that the apostle does not repudiate the ground on which the objection rests. He does not say God does not find fault. Nor does he say, Men may resist His will. Furthermore; he does not explain away the objection by saying: You have altogether misapprehended my meaning when I said ‘Whom He wills He treats kindly, and whom He wills He treats severely’. But he says, first, this is an objection you have no right to make; and then, This is an objection you have no reason to make (vide Dr. Brown). The objection was utterly inadmissible, for it was a replying against God. It was to complain about, argue against what God had done!

V 19 “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?’ The language which the apostle here puts into the mouth of the objector is so plain and pointed that misunderstanding ought to be impossible. Why doth He yet find fault? Now, reader, what can these words mean? Formulate your own reply before considering ours. Can the force of the apostle’s question be any other than this: If it is true that God has “mercy” on whom He wills, and also “hardens” whom He wills, then what becomes of human responsibility? In such a case men are nothing better than puppets, and if this be true then it would be unjust for God to “find fault” with His helpless creatures. Mark the word “then’ — Thou wilt say then unto me — he states the (false) inference or conclusion which the objector draws from what the apostle had been saying. And mark, my reader, the apostle readily saw the doctrine he had formulated would raise this very objection, and unless what we have written throughout this book provokes, in some at least, (all whose carnal minds are not subdued by divine grace) the same objection, then it must be either because we have not presented the doctrine which is set forth in Rom. 9, or else because human nature has changed since the apostle’s day. Consider now the remainder of the verse (19). The apostle repeats the same objection in a slightly different form

—repeats it so that his meaning may not be misunderstood — namely, “For who hath resisted His will?” It is clear then that the subject under immediate discussion relates to God’s ‘will’, i.e., His sovereign ways, which confirms what we have said above upon vs 17 and 18 where we contended that it is not judicial hardening which is in view (that 1s, hardening because of previous rejection of the truth) but sovereign “hardening”, that is, “hardening” for no other reason than that which inheres in the sovereign will of God. And hence the question ‘““Who hath resisted His will?’ What then does the apostle say in reply to these objections?

V 20 “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest agamst God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” The apostle, then, did not say the objection was pointless and groundless, instead, he rebukes the objector for his impiety. He reminds him that he is merely a “man”, a creature, and that as such it is most unseemly and impertinent for him to “reply (argue, or reason against) God”. Furthermore, he reminds him that he is nothing more than a “thing formed”, and therefore, it is madness and blasphemy to rise up against the Former Himself. Ere leaving this verse it should be pointed out that its closing words “Why hast thou made me thus” help us to determine, unmistakably, the precise subject under discussion. In the light of the immediate context what can be the force of the “thus”? What, but as in the case of Esau, why hast thou made me an object of “hatred”? What, but as in the case of Pharaoh, Why hast thou made me simply to “harden” me? What other meaning can fairly be assigned to it?

It is highly important to keep clearly before us that the apostle’s object throughout this passage is to treat of God’s Sovereignty in dealing with, on the one hand, those whom He loves — vessels unto honour and vessels of mercy, and also, on the other hand, with those whom He “hates” and “hardens’’ — vessels unto dishonour and vessels of wrath.

Vv 21-23 “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.” In these verses the apostle furnishes a full and final reply to the objections raised in v 19. First, he asks, “Hath not the potter power over the clay?” etc. It is to be noted the word here translated “power” is a different one in the Greek from the one rendered “power” in v 22 where it can only signify His might, but here in v 21 the “power” spoken of must refer to the Creator’s rights or sovereign prerogatives, that this is so appears from the fact that the same Greek word is employed in John 1 :12 — “‘As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God” — which, as is — well known, means the right or privilege to become the sons of God. The R. V. employs “right” both in John 1:12 and Rom. 9 :21.

V 21 “Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” That the “potter” here is God Himself is certain from the previous verse where the apostle asks ‘““‘Who art thou that repliest against God?” and then, speaking: in the terms of the figure he was about to use, continues, ‘Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it” etc. Some there are who would rob these words of their force by arguing that while the human potter makes certain vessels to be used for less honorable purposes than others, nevertheless, they are designed to fill some useful place. But the apostle does not here say, Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto an honorable use and another to a less honorable use, but he speaks of some “vessels” being made “unto dishonour”. It is true, of course, that God’s wisdom will yet be fully vindicated, inasmuch as the destruction of the reprobate will promote His glory — in what way the next verse tells us.

Ere passing to the next verse let us summarize the teaching of this and the two previous ones. In v 19 two questions are asked, “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?” To those questions a threefold answer is returned. First, in v 20 the apostle denies the creature the right to sit in judgment upon the ways of the Creator — “Nay but, O man who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus?” The apostle insists that the rectitude of God’s will must not be questioned. Whatever He does must be right. Second, in v 21 the apostle declares that the Creator has the right to dispose of His creatures as He sees fit — ‘““Hath not the Potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” It should be carefully noted that the word for “power” here is excousia — an entirely different word from the one translated “power” in the following verse (“to make known His power’) where it is dunaton. In the words “Hath not the Potter power over the clay?” it must be God’s power justly exercised, which is in view — the exercise of God’s rights consistently with His justice, — because the mere assertion of His omnipotency would be no such answer as God would return to the questions asked in v 19. Third, in vv 22, 23, the apostle gives the reasons why God proceeds differently with one of His creatures from another: on the one hand, it is to “shew His wrath” and to “make His power known”; on the other hand, it is to “make known the riches of His glory.”

“Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” Certainly God has the right to do this because He is the Creator. Does He exercise this right? Yes, as vs 13 and 17 clearly show us — ‘For this same purpose have I] raised thee (Pharaoh) up”.

V 22 “What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction’. Here the apostle tells us in the second place, why God acts thus, i.e., differently with different ones — having mercy on some and hardening others, making one vessel “unto honour” and another “unto dishonour”. Observe, that here in v 22 the apostle first mentions “vessels of wrath” before he refers in v 23 to the “vessels of mercy”. Why is this? The answer to this question is of first importance: we reply, Because it is the “vessels of wrath” who are the subjects in view before the objector in v 19. Two reasons are given why God makes some “‘vessels unto dishonour”: first, to “shew His wrath”, and secondly “to make His power known”’ — both of which were exemplified in the case of Pharaoh.

One point in the above verse requires separate consideration — ‘Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction”. The usual explanation which is given of these words is that the vessels of wrath fit themselves to destruction, that is, fit themselves by virtue of their wickedness, and it is argued that as there is no need for God to “fit them to destruction”, because they are already fitted by their own depravity, and that this must be the real meaning of this expression. Now if by “destruction” we understand punishment, it is perfectly true that the non-elect do “fit themselves” for every one will be judged “according to his works”; and further, we freely grant that subjectively the non-elect do fit themselves for destruction. But the point to be decided is, Is this what the apostle is here referring to? And, without hesitation, we reply it is not. Go back to vs 11-13: did Esau fit himself to be an object of God’s hatred, or was he not such before he was born? Again; did Pharaoh fit himself for destruction, or did not God harden his heart before the plagues were sent upon Egypt?

Rom. 9:22 is clearly a continuation in thought of v 21, and v 21 is part of the apostle’s reply to the questions raised in v 20: therefore, to fairly follow out the figure, it must be God Himself who “fits” unto destruction the vessels of wrath. Should it be asked how God does this, the answer, necessarily, is, objectively, — He fits the non-elect unto destruction by His fore-ordinating decrees. Should it be asked why God does this, the answer must be, To promote His own glory. “The sum of the apostle’s answer here is, that the grand object of God, both in the election and the reprobation of men, is that which is paramount to all things else in the creation of men, namely, His own glory” (Rob’t. Haldane).

V 23 “And that He might make known the riches of Hts glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.’ The only point in this verse which demands attention is the fact that the “vessels of mercy” are here said to be “afore prepared unto glory”. Many have pointed out that the previous verse does not say the vessels of wrath were afore prepared unto destruction, and from this omission they have concluded that we must understand the reference there to the non-elect fitting themselves in time, rather than God ordaining them for destruction from all eternity. But this conclusion by no means follows. We need to look back to v 21 and note the figure which is there employed. “Clay” is inanimate matter, corrupt, decomposed, and therefore a fit substance to represent fallen humanity. As then the apostle is contemplating God’s sovereign dealings with humanity in view of the fall, He does not say the vessels of wrath were afore prepared unto destruction, for the obvious and sufficient reason that it was not until after the fall that they became (in themselves) what is here symbolised by the ‘clay’. All that is necessary to refute the erroneous conclusion referred to above is to point out that what is said of the vessels of wrath is not that they are fit for destruction (which is the word that would have been used if the reference had been to them fitting themselves by their own wickedness) but fitted to destruction, which, in the light of the whole context, must mean a sovereign ordination to destruction by the Creator. We quote here the pointed words of Calvin on this passage — *There are vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction; there are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that they may be examples of God’s vengeance and displeasure. Though in the second clause the apostle asserts more expressly, that it is God who prepared the elect for glory, as he had simply said before that the reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction, there is yet no doubt but that the preparation of both is connected with the secret counsel of God. Paul might have otherwise said, that the reprobate gave up or cast themselves into destruction, but he intimates here, that before they are born they are destined to their lot”. With this we are in hearty accord. Rom. 9:22 does not say the vessels of wrath fitted themselves, nor does it say they are fit for destruction, instead, it declares they are “fitted to destruction” and the context shows plainly it is God who thus “fits” them objectively by His eternal decrees.

Though Romans 9 contains the fullest setting forth of the doctrine of Reprobation, there are other passages which refer to it, one or two of which we will now look at, briefly —

“A Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the Word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed” (1 Pet. 2:8). In certain circles it is customary to dismiss this Scripture by saying that “Gt refers to a class, not persons, who are ‘appointed;’ that is, to all unbelievers of this character.” How this helps the cause of those who reject the doctrine of ‘Reprobation’ we fail to see, for a “class” is made up of individuals, and the individuals who comprise the class spoken of in 1 Pet. 2:8 are said to be “appointed” to stumble at the Word and be disobedient. The “whereunto” manifestly looks back to the stumbling at the Word and the disobedience. The word “appointed” here (tithemi) is the same as in 1 Thess. 5 :9 — ‘‘For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.” Why say that God has “not appointed us to wrath” if He has not appointed any to wrath”?

We quote now from the commentary of Archbishop Leighton (1748) on this passage, and none who have read his most valuable work on First Peter are likely to accuse him of Hyper-Calvinism — ‘“‘Whereunto also they were appointed. This the apostle adds, for the further satisfaction of believers on this point, how it is that so many rejected Christ, and stumble at Him; telling them plainly, that the secret purpose of God is accomplished im this: God having determined to glorify His justice on impenitent sinners, as He shows His rich mercy in them that believe. This is certain, that the thoughts of God are all not less just in themselves, than deep and unsoundable by us. His justice appears clear, in that man’s destruction is always the fruit of his own sin. But: to give causes of God’s decrees without (outside of) Himself, is neither agreeable with the primitive being of the nature of God, nor with the doctrine of the Scriptures. This is sure, that God is not bound to give us further account of these things, and we are bound not to ask it. Let these two words, as Augustine says, answer all, ‘Who art thou O man?’ and ‘O, the depth’ (Rom. 9:20; 11:33).” The pity is that this and other excellent commentaries written one and two hundred years ago are not in circulation today at least as widely as many others written nearer our own times and which, though penned by those claiming to have received much more light than those who went before them, are, nevertheless, far inferior in spiritual discernment, lucidity and scholarship.*

“But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption” (2 Pet. 2:12). Here, again, every effort is made to escape the plain teaching of this solemn passage. We are told that it is the “brute beasts” who are “made to be taken and destroyed” and not the persons here likened to them. All that is needed to refute such sophistry is to inquire wherein lies the point of analogy between the “these” (men) and the “brute beasts”? What is the force of the “as’ — but “these as brute beasts’? Clearly, it is that “these”? men as brute beasts, are the ones who like animals are “made to be taken and destroyed”: the closing words confirming this by reiterating the same sentiment — ‘and shall utterly perish in their own corruption.”

“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).

*Bishop Leighton’s commentary on First Peter is yet to be found, occasionally, in second-hand book stores, and we warmly recommend it to all who may be fortunate enough to find a copy. Philip Doddridge (the hymn writer of blessed memory) wrote in his Preface to this work : — ‘“There is a spirit in archbishop Leighton I never met with in any human writings; nor can I read many lines in them without being moved. Indeed, it would be difficult for me to say where, but in the Sacred Oracles, I have ever found such heart-affecting lessons of simplicity and humility, candor and benevolence, exalted piety, without the least tincture of enthusiasm, and an entire mortification to every earthly interest.”

Attempts have been made to escape the obvious force of this verse by substituting a different translation of the Greek for that given in the King James Version. The revised version reads, “For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation” and in the margin we have “set forth” as the alternative for “written.” The assumption is that Jude is here referring to the Old Testament Scriptures which announced beforehand the condemnation of these “certain men.” Now what is required here is not so much a profound knowledge of Greek as an acquaintance with the general tenor of Scripture. The point to be determined is not whether “prographo”’ signifies “written of beforehand” but what does the Old Testament teach concerning these “certain men” of Jude 4. The answers to one or two simple questions will enable every reader to decide for himself — even though he knows not a single word of Greek. To what does the apostle refer when he says “there are certain men crept in unawares’? Into what had they “crept’? Can there be any doubt as to the right answer? Was it not into the Christian Assemblies? And where in the Old Testament is there anything “written” about “certain men” creeping into Christian Assemblies? Where indeed! No; the translation given by the revisers is absolutely untenable if it be examined in the light of the Word itself, and the fact that an alternative rendering is given in the margin is proof that it failed to satisfy many of the revisers themselves. The truth is that the marginal rendering of “set forth’ is a much more accurate rendering of the Greek than is “written of beforehand.” The Englishman’s Greek New Testament “Interlinear Literal Translation,” which has few equals and perhaps no superiors, renders the first part of Jude 4 as follows: “For came in stealthily certain men, they who of old have been marked out to this sentence.” Who was it that “marked out” these certain men to this condemnatory sentence?) Who but God Himself! There is then no good reason at all for departing from the reading of the King James version — ‘For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation.” It is only unbelief which would evade its plain force.

Summing up the teaching of these four passages, we learn that God makes some vessels “unto dishonor” and by His eternal decree fits, objectively, these vessels of wrath “to destruction” in order that He might make known His power, just as He raised up Pharaoh for the same purpose; that these same individuals are “appointed” to stumble at His Word, as were the Jews of Christ’s day (John 12:40); that they are, like brute beasts, “made to be taken and destroyed,” just as Judas was; that they were before of old “ordained to this condemnation.” And in the face of these passages we affirm what is now — when men will not endure sound doctrine — almost universally denied, namely, that the Word of God plainly teaches both Predestination and Reprobation, or to use the words of Calvin “Eternal election includes God’s predestination of some to salvation and others to destruction.”

We must now consider a number of passages which are often quoted with the purpose of showing that God has not fitted certain vessels to destruction or ordained certain men to condemnation. First, we cite Ezek. 33:11, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” The first thing to be remarked about this passage is that it must be read in the light of its context. If we note its setting it will be seen that these words cannot be extended to all mankind but have reference to the nation of Israel in a by-gone day. The previous verse to the one quoted reads, “Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?” The ones whom Ezekiel was called upon to address were fearful lest all hope of Divine mercy was in vain. They had been carried into captivity and were thoroughly dejected. God’s displeasure rested upon them both for their own sins and for the sins of their fathers. But Ezekiel is sent to assure them that all hope was not in vain, that God was ready to deal with them in mercy, and that if they would turn from their evil way they should live and not die — even though they had committed innumerable offences against God, yet an offer of mercy was still extended to them. In a word then, the prophet was sent to Israel to inspire the penitent with hopes of pardon. Ere turning from this passage we cannot do better than quote Calvin’s excellent comments upon it: “Let us observe, therefore, the design of the prophet in saying that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked; it is to assure the pious of God’s readiness to pardon them immediately on their repentance, and to shew the impious the aggravation of their sin in rejecting such great compassion and kindness of God. Repentance, therefore, will always be met by Divine mercy; but on whom repentance is bestowed, we are clearly taught by Ezekiel himself, as well as by all the prophets and apos-Leda

Matt. 25:41 is often quoted to show that God has not fitted certain vessels to destruction — ‘“Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels.” This is, in fact, one of the principal verses relied upon to disprove the doctrine of Reprobation. But we submit that the emphatic word here is not “for” but “Devil.” This verse (see context) sets forth the severity of the judgment which awaits the lost. In other words, the above scripture expresses the awfulness of the everlasting fire rather than the subjects of it — if the fire be “prepared for the Devil and his angels” then how intolerable it will be! If the place of eternal torment into which the damned shall be cast is the same as that in which God’s arch-enemy will suffer, how dreadful must that place be.

Again: if God has chosen only certain ones to salvation, why are we told that God “now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30)? That God commandeth “all men” to repent is but the enforcing of His righteous claims as the moral Governor of the world. How could He do less, seeing that all men everywhere have sinned against Him? Furthermore; that God commandeth all men everywhere to repent argues the universality of creature responsibility. But this scripture does not declare that it is God’s pleasure to “give repentance” (Acts 5:31) to all men everywhere. That the apostle Paul did not believe God gave repentance to every soul is clear from his words in 2 Tim. 2:25 — “In meek- ‘ness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.”

Again; we are asked, If God has “ordained” only certain ones unto eternal life, then why do we read that God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4)? In reply we would say, In Scripture God’s “will” sometimes expresses that which He approves, at others, that which He purposes. God approves of all sinners turning to Him, and turns away none who do, but He has not purposed the salvation of every sinner; if He had, then His purpose would be effected, for “what His soul desireth, even that He doeth” (Job 23:13).

Again; we are asked, Does not Scripture declare, again and again, that God is no “respecter of persons’? We answer, it certainly does, and God’s electing grace proves it.

The seven sons of Jesse, though older and physically superior to David, are passed by, while the young shepherd boy is exalted to Israel’s throne. The scribes and lawyers pass tn-noticed, and ignorant fishermen are chosen to be the apostles of the Lamb. Divine truth is hidden from the wise and prudent and is revealed to babes instead. The great majority of the wise and noble are ignored, while the weak, the base, the despised, are called and saved. Harlots and publicans are sweetly compelled to come in to the gospel feast, while self-righteous Pharisees are suffered to perish in their immaculate morality. Truly, God is “no respecter” of persons or He would not have saved me.

Another passage which is often brought forward to refute the teaching that God has predestined only certain ones to salvation is 2 Pet. 3:9 — ‘The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” A very few words are all that is required to show there is nothing in this verse which conflicts with what we have said above. All that is needed is to pay careful attention to the antecedents of the pronouns. Not willing that any should perish — any of whom? Clearly, of the “usward.” And who are they? The ones referred to as “beloved” in the opening verse of the chapter to whom the apostle says he addresses “this second epistle.” If we turn back to his first epistle and note to whom it is addressed we discover the remote and original antecedent of the “any,” “usward” and “beloved.” The first epistle of Peter is addressed to the “strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” and these are declared to be “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1,2). God then is not willing that “any” of His “elect’ should perish. It is on their account that God has exercised such longsufferance toward the world which is guilty of the death of His Son. It is because God is not willing that any of His “elect” should perish that He has delayed so long the fulfillment of His “promise’ — i. e., to send back His Son. Christ will not return until the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, that is, until the Church which is His body is complete, and that will not be until the last of God’s elect have been gathered in.

That the Doctrine of Reprobation is a “hard saying” to the carnal mind is readily acknowledged — yet, is it any “harder” than that of eternal punishment? That it is clearly revealed in Scripture we have sought to demonstrate, and it is not for us to pick and choose from the truths revealed in God’s Word. Let those who are inclined to receive those doctrines which commend themselves to their judgment and who reject those which they cannot fully understand, remember those scathing words of our Lord’s, “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken”’ (Luke 24:25): Fools because slow of heart; slow of heart, not dull of head.

Once more we would avail ourself of the language of Calvin: “But, as I have hitherto only recited such things as are delivered without any obscurity or ambiguity in the Scriptures, let persons who hesitate not to brand with ignominy those Oracles of heaven, beware what kind of opposition they make. For, if they pretend ignorance, with a desire to be commended for their modesty, what greater instance of pride can be conceived, than to oppose one little word to the authority of God! as, ‘It appears otherwise to me,’ or ‘I would rather not meddle with this subject.’ But if they openly censure, what will they gain by their puny attempts against heaven? Their petulance, indeed, is no novelty; for im all ages there have been impious and profane men, who have virulently opposed this doctrine. But they shall feel the truth of what the Spirit long ago declared by the mouth of David, that God ‘is clear when He judgeth’ (Psa. 51 mt & David obliquely hints at the madness of men who display such excessive presumption amidst their insignificance, as not only to dispute against God, but to arrogate to themselves the power of condemning Him. In the meantime, he briefly suggests, that God is unaffected by all the blasphemies which they discharge against heaven, but that He dissipates the mists of calumny, and illustriously displays His righteousness; our faith, also, being founded on the Divine Word, and therefore, superior to all the world, from its exaltation looks down with contempt upon those mists” (John Calvin).

In closing this chapter we propose to quote from the writings of some of the standard theologians since the days of the Reformation, not that we would buttress our own statements by an appeal to human authority however venerable or ancient, but in order to show that what we have advanced in these pages is no novelty of the twentieth century, no heresy of the ‘latter days’ but, instead, a doctrine which has been definitely formulated and commonly taught by many of the most pious and scholarly students of Holy Writ.

“Predestination we call the decree of God, by which He has determined in Himself, what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny: but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated either to life or to death” — from John Calvin’s “Institutes” (1536 A. D.) Book III, Chapter XXI entitled “Eternal Election, or God’s Predestination of Some to Salvation and of Others to Destruction.”

We ask our readers to mark well the above language. A perusal of it should show that what the present writer has advanced in this chapter is not “Hyper-Calvinism” but real Calvinism, pure and simple. Our purpose in making this remark is to show that those who, not acquainted with Calvin’s writings, in their ignorance condemn as ultra-Calvinism that which is simply a reiteration of what Calvin himself taught — a reiteration because that prince of theologians as well as his humble debtor have both found this doctrine in the Word of God itself.

The “Larger Westminister Catechism” (1688 ) — adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church — declares “God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of His mere love, for the praise of His glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory, and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof; and also, according to His sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of His own will (whereby He extendeth or withholdeth favor as He pleases), hath passed by, and fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of His justice”,

Arch-bishop Ussher, the celebrated chronologist, asked, “Did God, before He made man, determine to save some and reject others? Yes, surely, before they had done either good or evil, God in His eternal counsel set them apart.”

In his exposition of John’s Gospel (1647) John Trapp — C. H. Spurgeon’s favorite among the Puritans — commenting upon John 10:26 (“But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep’) said “Reprobates cannot believe, yea they cannot but resist the external offers of God’s grace.”

“It doth sometimes imply one that is designed by God’s decree to death and damnation; as, in John 17:12, Judas is called a son of perdition; that is, one who is ordained by God to perdition” (Thos. Goodwin, D. D. 1650).

In his exposition of Jude 4, Thos. Manton (one of Cromwell’s chaplains) says, This “is an eternal decree. God’s internal acts are the same with His essence, and therefore before all time, as believers are elected before all worlds, (Eph. 1:4) so are sinners reprobated; they are both in time and order before ever the creature was. Election and Reprobation are not a thing of yesterday, and subsequent to the acts of the creature, but from all eternity. There 1s a decree and preordination, not only a naked foresight, of them that perish. Some Lutherans say that Predestination is proper only to the elect, but as to the Reprobate there is only a prescience or naked foreknowledge: no foreordination, lest they should make God the author of the creature’s sin and ruin. But these men fear where no fear is; the Scriptures show that the greatest evil that ever was, did not only fall under the foreknowledge, but also the determinate counsel of God (Acts 2:23); it was not only foreknown, but unchangeably ordained and determined” (Thos. Manton’s works, 1660 — Vol. 5, page 128).

“Yet farther, to evidence that this purpose of God or intention spoken of is peculiar and distinguishing, there 1s express mention of another sort of men who are not thus chosen but who lie under the purpose of God as to a contrary lot and condition — ‘The Lord hath made all things for Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil’ (Prov. 16:4). They are persons ‘whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of Life’ (Rev. 13:8); ‘being of old ordained to condemnation’ (Jude 4); being as ‘natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed’ (2 Pet. 2 ‘12 ). ee therefore the apostle distinguishing hath divided all men into those who are ‘appointed to wrath,’ and those who are appointed to the obtaining of salvation by Jesus Christ’” (John Owen, 1665 A. D. Vol. 12, page 555).

Commenting upon Rom. 9:22, “What if God willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction”, Jonathan Edwards (Vol. 4, p. 300 — 1743 A.D.) says, “How awful doth the majesty of God appear in the dreadfulness of His anger! This we may learn to be one end of the damnation of the wicked.”

“The date of this decree is as ancient as eternity itself. Wicked men were ‘before of old ordained to this condemnation’ (Jude 4). If men were chosen from the beginning, that is from all eternity, to salvation, then those not chosen, or not ordained to eternal life, were foreordained as surely to condemnation. Indeed, there can be no new decree, appointment, or purpose, made by God in time. If the decree of election is from eternity, that of rejection must be so too; since the one cannot be without the other’’ — John Gill — predecessor of C. H. Spurgeon.

In his commentary on Romans — than which, in our judgment, there is no superior — Robert Haldane (1814) wfote, “It may be asked why God hated him (Esau) before he sinned personally; and human wisdom has proved its folly, by endeavoring to soften the word hated into something less than hated: but the man who submits like a little child to the Word of God, will find no difficulty in seeing in what sense Esau was worthy of the hatred of God before he was born. He sinned in Adam, and therefore was properly an object of God’s hatred as well as fallen Adam. There is no other view which will ever account for this language and His treatment Oia satint en 2): By many this has been explained, Esau have I loved less. But Esau was not the object of any degree of the divine love, and the word hate never signifies to love less. It might as well be said, that the phrase, Jacob have I loved does not signify that God really loved Jacob, but that to love here signifies only to hate less, and that all that is meant by the expression is that God hated Jacob less than He hated Esau. Esau was justly the object of hatred before he was born, because he was viewed in Adam as a sinner. Jacob was justly the object of God’s love before he was born because he was viewed in Christ as righteous.”

Commenting on Rom. 9 :17 — ‘‘For this purpose have I raised thee up’ — Mr. Haldane says, ‘Here is the destination of Pharaoh to his destruction”.

Thomas Chalmers in his “Lectures on Romans” (1819- 1823) writes, “This doctrine of predestination ought never to be a stumbling-block in the way of your entertaining the overtures of the Gospel. Leave it to God Himself to harmonize these everlasting decrees, by which He has distinguished between the elect and the reprobate, with His present declarations of good will to-one and to all of the human famlyase

Said Moses Stuart of the Theological Seminary, Andover, in his commentary on Romans (1832), “Those who contend against this sentiment contend against what is every day exhibited before their eyes. Why was this man born white and that one black? Why is this child born and nurtured in the bosom of a pious family, and that one in the midst of robbers and murderers? The children had done neither ‘good or evil’, when their lot was decided. This no one can deny. Then, in the next place, is not their eternal condition connected with their means of grace, their pious nurture, their present condition and associations in life? And whe-placed them in their present condition? All nature, as well as the Bible, proclaims this doctrine of divine sovereignty.”

Said Dr. J. Brown, Professor of Exegetical Theology to the United Presbyterian Church (1857), “Has not God the power and right, out of the aggregate body of human beings who are to exist in all ages, to fix the everlasting destiny of individuals — to appoint some to everlasting happiness, and others to everlasting misery? We apprehend that an affirmative answer to both of these questions is the true one’.

“Fitted to destruction” (Rom. 9:22). After declaring this phrase admits of two interpretations, Dr. Hodge — perhaps the best known and most widely read commentator on Romans — says, “The other interpretation assumes that the reference is to God and that the Greek word for ‘fitted’ has its full participle force; prepared (by God): for destruction.” This, says Dr. Hodge, “Is adopted not only by the majority of Augustinians, but also by many Lutherans”,

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever, Amen” (Rom. 11 :33-36).*

*“Of Him” — His will is the origin of all existence; “through” or

“by Him”’ — He is the Creator and Controller Olfall an tomrimpea — everything promotes His glory in their final end.