“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.