THE SERMON.
“For whom He did foreknow He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son.”—Romans viii: 29.
I have quoted only one clause of the verse, because I have not time to elaborate the several doctrines to which the apostle calls our attention. On this occasion, I desire to make some few remarks on the divine purpose. In one sermon I can do little more than present only a few of the reasons which Presbyterians have for believing the doctrine of predestination. Without taking up the time in further preliminaries, I proceed, at once, to discuss the doctrine that is announced in our text. We can hardly misapprehend the text. But to remove all possible ground of misconstruction and misunderstanding, let us notice in what sense “foreknowledge” is employed. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of predestination. No one will dispute that it means to “appoint,” or “destine beforehand.” “To foreknow,” says Adam Clarke, “here signifies to design beforehand, or at the first forming of the scheme.” Without, therefore, doing the least violence to the text, I am justifiable in translating, “whom He elected or designed before He did predestinate.” The term predestinate embraces both the decrees of election and reprobation. Some persons are disposed to limit the word to election. But no good reason can be assigned for such restriction, as God determined the final condition of both classes. Permit me to say here, that we ought to enter into the discussion of this subject with feelings of the deepest solemnity and reverence. I know it is revolting to the carnal heart to think that the eternal destiny of men is settled before they are born. It is repugnant to human pride; but above all things let us avoid warping and perverting the truth of the Scripture so as to bring it in harmony with our feelings and desires. If we allow ourselves to do violence to God’s Word, in order to support a theory, we shall run into serious error. Men, impelled more by feeling than reason, have embraced the doctrine of universalism. I am sure I could have no objection to the doctrine of universalism, if it could be established from God’s written Word. I want no one to go to hell, and I would be glad to think that all of Adam’s race will be saved at last. I, for one, hold to the doctrine of predestination, not only because it is agreeable to my feelings, but because I believe it to be taught in God’s Word. If it were not taught there, I would not have the least objection to renouncing it. Now let us, as briefly as possible, see whether or not it is promulgated in the Bible. I begin with Election. Is it to be found in the Scriptures? If so, it is our duty to accept it, no matter if we cannot make it square with our notions of the fitness of things. The definition of election is, that it is the choice which God, in the exercise of sovereign grace, made of certain individuals of mankind to enjoy salvation by Jesus Christ. I do not think the position can be successfully combatted, that God has elected some to salvation in preference to others. There are many passages of Scripture that establish the position. But I have time to call attention to only a few of them. Romans 16: 13: “Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord.” “I have manifested thy name unto the men which Thou gavest me out of the world.” “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” “I have much people in this city” * * * * “to them who are the called of the Lord according to his purpose,” “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain.” “He said 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 to him that willeth nor him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” “Who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our work, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began.” “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.” These are but a few passages that establish the doctrine of predestination and election. It would require a volume to contain the passages of Scripture that teach the doctrine both by precept and example. Some persons admit the doctrine of election with certain modifications. They say it is an election of character; they affirm that God elected the righteous character. I cannot see what is gained by this attempt to separate an individual from his character. It is character that makes the man. It would be just as reasonable to talk of extracting the sweetness from sugar as to make a distinction between an individual and his character. But leaving out the passages which I have just quoted, our text settles the point. It says plainly, whom, not what, he did foreknow. All through the Scripture, election is spoken of as applicable to individuals, and not characters. Some say, God elected to salvation those who He foresaw would believe and repent. If Paul meant no more than this in the epistle to the Romans, he used language for which there was no necessity. Why should he exclaim with such solemnity, “Who art thou, oh, man, that repliest against God”? If Paul did not hold to the doctrine of predestination, it is strange that Peter should have said that Paul “wrote things hard to be understood.” There is not the least difficulty in understanding the proposition that God elected those He foresaw would believe and repent. No Presbyterian would deny that proposition in its literal sense, for it is certain that those who are elected, do believe and repent. God never elected any one that does not believe and repent. But those who oppose the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, assert that God elected some to salvation on account of their foreseen faith, and their voluntary compliance with God’s requirements. Well, if this position be correct, there was no necessity of Peter’s saying that Paul wrote things hard to understand, because no one could fail to understand such a proposition, and no one could reply against God, not even the worst sinner on the face of the earth, if Paul meant no more than that every man’s salvation is placed in his own hands; because this is the very thing for which the natural man has ever clamored. No one would object to the doctrine of salvation on account of foreseen faith and righteousness, or righteous works, if it were taught in the Scriptures; because it is in accordance with human notions of things. It is a philosophical idea. I will cheerfully concede the point that the main system that stands opposed to the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church has the merit of philosophy. But this is one great objection to it. The Bible is no book of philosophy. It announces truths in disconnected order, some of which, owing to the weakness of our finite minds, appear to be contradictory. But the chief objection to this doctrine of foreseen faith and works as a ground of salvation, is that it does not appear to be consonant to the divine will. Paul tells us why we are chosen. He says “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.” We were not chosen because we were already holy, but that we should become so. Then he goes on to say: “He having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself according to the good pleasure of His will.” That is the reason why we were chosen; it was the good pleasure of His will. He does not say that we were chosen on account of our foreseen faith and works. I hope no one will understand me as affirming that we are saved without faith. We must have faith; but it is not the ground of our salvation. Besides, faith itself is the gift of God. It is a well-settled principle in all orthodox theology, that man is dead in trespasses and sin. How God could foresee that a man in this condition could, of himself, exercise faith, it is difficult to conceive. It requires the Holy Spirit to awaken men to life. Without such an operation, no man is capable of spiritual activity. If this be granted, then, we can easily see in what sense faith is the gift of God. Now to bring the discussion down to the narrowest possible limits, I will lay down a proposition which cannot be disputed.
First, God made choice of some to be saved. On what principle was the choice based? Why, to use plain language, God chose some on account of some good in them; or some evil in them; or the choice was simply His good will and pleasure. Well, there was no good in them, consequently God could not have chosen them on that account. There was not a naturally righteous character on the face of the earth. If men had been left to themselves to believe, not a single individual of the human race would have been saved. Again, God is too holy to have chosen men on account of the evil in them. I presume no one will contend for any such doctrine as this. Then, the conclusion of the whole matter is, that God chose some men to salvation because it was His good will and pleasure.
Some cry out that this would be unjust. They say that God should not make distinctions, and that He should be impartial. I do not see where the injustice is. To illustrate: Here are five criminals condemned to death. If the Governor should pardon two of them, is there any injustice to the remaining three? The objector says there would be, unless the Governor has some good reason for showing clemency in the case of the two. For the sake of argument, we will admit it. God also has His reasons for His choice; but these reasons, so far as His secret purposes are concerned, have never been revealed to us. All we now know is that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. Men somehow, seem to think that God has no right to make distinctions among the sons of Adam; and that He is bound to put all on the same level, and if He saves one, He is bound to give all the same opportunity to be saved. But God is under no sort of obligation to save any one. If the Lord has no right to make distinctions, then we are driven to the conclusion that the universalist has the true doctrine. Because it would follow that if God saves one, then He must employ such means in the case of every individual as would result in His salvation. If it required a miracle to convince Paul, and it would require a miracle to convince me, God would be bound to perform it. So all must be saved. The only safe position is to take God’s Word at what it says. It speaks of the elect as individuals, and not mere characters, and it speaks of them as chosen before the foundation of the world, because of God’s good will and pleasure. Now let us notice the other class whom God has not chosen—the class of reprobates. The idea of reprobation is necessarily implied in the idea of election. So if we prove one, the other is virtually established. They are correlative terms, and men do violence to Scripture and logic when they admit election and deny reprobation. When out of some objects a choice is made, those not chosen are certainly rejected. When objects are presented to a person for the selection of some, even if he speak not a word, he says by his actions: “This I will take, and this I will not take.” It is in vain to say that nothing has been done to them; but that they were left in the precise condition in which they were found. There certainly has been some sort of act of mind in refusing them, or passing them by. But leaving out the question of logical consistency, we would have no zeal in the advocacy of such a doctrine were it not taught in the Scriptures. We could well afford to admit a logical inconsistency, if by the admission we could get rid of this doctrine which has aroused a spirit of rebellious wrath in the heart of the natural man. We may lift up our hands in holy horror at the idea of reprobation, but the Scriptures affirm it in language plain enough. There are so many passages bearing on the subject, that I have not time to call attention to them all. I refer to only a few as specimens. The Scriptures say concerning Pharaoh, ‘For this same purpose have I raised thee up,’ etc. “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” “What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” “Men of corrupt mind, reprobate concerning the faith.” “There are certain men crept in unawares who were before of old ordained to this condemnation,” etc. Again, we read of those whose names are not written in the Book of Life. I could quote other passages just as strong and conclusive as those referred to. Throughout the whole Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, we are taught both by precept and example, that there is a line running between the people of God and those doomed to eternal destruction. Therefore, we conclude that the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith were justifiable in inserting that much-abused article: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others are fore-ordained to everlasting death.” The idea is expressed in no ambiguous terms. These men perceived the doctrine in God’s Word, and they did not shrink from avowing it, without the least sugar-coating.
And now, if reasoning from logical premises would be of any avail; if it be thought necessary to support scriptural truth by logical processes, I would say that only three propositions can be made in regard to the salvation of men:
First, All men will be saved.
Second, All men will be lost.
Third, A part of the human race will be saved, and a part lost.
We can easily prove by the holy Scriptures that the first two propositions are not true. Then, we are bound to admit that the third is true. This is a fixed fact. The question is, when was it fixed in the mind of God? The Scripture says the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world. The point for which we contend is that the fact was fixed by the Lord. It was not simply foreseen as a fact that would arise independently of divine interposition, but it was predetermined. It was God who determined it. This is the kind of predestination to which the Presbyterian Church holds. Whatever objections may be urged against it, we believe it to be taught in God’s Word. There are questions in regard to it which no human being can answer. We are confronted with the question, how fore-ordination and man’s free agency can be reconciled. It is certainly no good reason for the rejection of a doctrine that we cannot fully understand it. Who can understand the Trinity? Who can comprehend the dual existence of our Lord Jesus? Such truths we receive on faith, and not because they are in harmony with reason. But it is not right to require that Predestinarians shall remove objections which apply with equal force to the theological system of those who so bitterly oppose us. For instance, how can fore-knowledge be reconciled with man’s free agency? Whatever God fore-knows must come to pass.
We, too, believe with others, that so far as free agency is concerned, every man on the face of the earth could be saved, if he only had the will to come to Christ. But some will not accept; and that fact was fixed in the Eternal Mind, away back before the foundation of the world, as well as the other fact, that some would accept. It is in vain to say that this result was merely fore-seen. When there was nothing in existence, how could God fore-see anything except what He had determined should be? Permit me to use a plain illustration: Here stands a sculptor before a block of marble. There are millions of possible images and forms in that marble. With his chisel the artist can develop one image. That must first exist as a conception in his mind. After a while the beautiful statue is brought out as the result of a predetermination. Or the sculptor might produce two images—three—four—a hundred. There are millions of possible forms in the marble, but the workman determines what forms he will develop. Applying the illustration, there were millions of possible events or circumstances before the divine Mind. The Lord could have made this world larger or smaller; He could have made Adam a very different being from what he was. But God chose, predetermined, to make this world just the size it is. God selected the events that take place out of millions that might have taken place, as the sculptor chose the images which he would develop. If the Lord did not select, or predetermine, the precise events that occur in time, who did make the selection? Was the All Wise God merely trying experiments? What would we think of a sculptor who should go to work on his block of marble without any conception or plan in his mind? How, then, can we believe that God would place men in the world, and devise the scheme of redemption without selecting the exact results in His own Omniscient Mind? The Lord has His own purposes, and these purposes will be accomplished; and this is predestination. Therefore, I do not hesitate to endorse another article of our Confession of Faith, which has been often assailed with un-christian virulence: “God hath fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass.”
Here I would observe that the objection is without foundation that, if predestination be true, it is in vain for men to make any effort to be saved. This is a gross perversion of the doctrine. God does not decree that any one shall be doomed to eternal torment who desires to enjoy heaven, and who is willing to accept the terms of salvation. Show me the sinner who is thirsting for the waters of Life, and I will show you one whose name is written in the Book of Heaven as an heir of God. Now, how much broader do we want the plan of salvation, if it embraces all that desire salvation on Scriptural terms? If the sinner is disposed to repent, he has no reason to suppose that he belongs to the reprobate class. But some men want an excuse for continuing in sin, and these are the persons who, Peter said, would “wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction.”
Another argument in support of this doctrine is the fact that Paul mentions, and comments upon the very objections that are to this day urged against the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church. It is evident that the apostle taught precisely what the Confession of Faith does. We have to meet the very same objections which he met, and refuted. We know that this doctrine has ever been revolting to men of the world. You remember, when Christ said, “No man can come unto me except the Father which hath sent me, draw him,” some of His disciples “went back, and walked with Him no more.”
I have no doubt the doctrine of predestination will be opposed to the end of time. But it can never be destroyed. You may revise the Confession of Faith till every vestige of it disappears, but that does not blot it out from the pages of God’s Word. To get rid of that doctrine, the whole Bible must be revised from Genesis to Revelation. Strike out from the Scriptures every thing that is said in regard to predestination; expunge every passage from which the doctrine may be deduced by plain inference, and there is nothing left but Universalism.
Predestination and man’s free agency are both taught in the Holy Scriptures. Recognize this fact, and you will find little difficulty in harmonizing passages that may appear to some persons to be antagonistic. Reject either doctrine, and you will run into serious error. There is Fatalism, on the one side; and on the other, there is a broad Liberality of sentiment among men which receives no support from God’s Word. Hence we honestly believe that the position of the Presbyterian Church is the only true way to steer in safety between Scylla and Charybdis.
Transcriber’s Note:
Obvious typographic errors have been corrected.