Kapitel 5-suverænitet Gud I Reprobation. (AW Pink)
"Se derfor godhed og sværhedsgraden af Gud." (# Ro 11:22)
I det sidste kapitel i forbindelse med behandling af suverænitet Gud Fader i Frelsens undersøgte vi syv passager, som repræsenterer ham som et valg blandt menneskenes børn, og predestinating visse TSI'er der bør i overensstemmelse med de image af hans Søn. Den betænksomt Læseren vil naturligvis spørge, Og hvad med dem, der ikke var "ordineret til evigt liv?" Svaret, der normalt tilbage til dette spørgsmål, selv af dem, der bekender sig til tro, hvad Skriften lærer om Guds suverænitet, er, at Gud passerer af den ikke-valgte, overlader det til dem alene til at gå deres egne veje, og i sidste ende kaster dem ind i Lake of Fire, fordi de nægtede han, og afviste Frelser hans udbyder. Men dette er kun en del af sandheden, og den anden side-at der er mest offensive til det kødelige sind er enten nægtet ignoreret eller.
I lyset af den frygtelige Alvor emnet her før os, i betragtning af den kendsgerning, at i dag næsten alle-også dem, der bekender sig at være calvinister-forkaster og afviser denne doktrin, og i betragtning af, at dette er et af de punkter i vores bog, der er beregnet til at hæve de fleste kontroverser, føler vi, at en udvidet undersøgelse af dette aspekt af Guds Sandhed er krævet. At denne gren af genstanden for Guds suverænitet er dybt mystisk vi frit tillader det, endnu, det er ikke derfor, vi bør afvise det. Problemet er, at i dag, der er så mange, der modtager vidnesbyrd om Gud kun så vidt som de på tilfredsstillende måde kan redegøre for alle de grunde og begrundelsen for hans adfærd, der betyder, at de vil acceptere andet end det, der kan måles i smålige tariffer baseret på deres egen begrænsede kapacitet.
Angivelse i sin baldest form det punkt nu skal vurderes, er, Gud har forudordineret visse dem til fordømmelse? At mange vil være evig fordømt fremgår Skriften, at hver enkelt vil blive bedømt efter hans gerninger og høste, som han har sået, og at følge hans "fordømmelse er retfærdig," (# Ro 03:08) er lige så sikker, og at Gud dekreteret, at de ikke valgte bør vælge den retning, de følger vi nu forpligter sig til at bevise.
Fra hvad der er blevet forelagt os i det foregående kapitel om valg af nogle til frelse, ville det uundgåeligt følge, selv om Skriften havde været tavs, når det, at der skal være en afvisning af andre. Hvert valg, åbenbart og nødvendigvis indebærer et afslag, for hvor der ikke er forlader derude kan være noget valg. Hvis der være nogle, som Gud har valgt til frelse, (# 2th 02:03) skal der være andre, som ikke vælges til frelse. Hvis der er nogle, Faderen gav Kristus, (# Joh 6:37) skal der være andre, som han ikke give jer Kristus. Hvis der er nogle, hvis navne er skrevet i Lammets livets bog, (# Re 21:27) skal der være andre, hvis navne ikke er skrevet der. At dette er tilfældet vil vi fuldt ud bevise nedenfor.
Nu vil alle vil anerkende, at der fra verdens grundlæggelse Gud sikkert foreknew og forudså, der ville, og som ikke ville modtage Kristus som deres frelser, derfor giver væsen og fødsel til dem, han vidste ville afvise Kristus, han nødvendigvis skabt dem til fordømmelse. Alle, der kan siges i et svar til dette er, Nej mens Gud gjorde foreknow disse dem ville afvise Kristus, men han har ikke dekret, at de burde. Men dette er en tiggeri af de reelle spørgsmål på spørgsmål. Gud havde en bestemt grund til, hvorfor han skabte mænd, har et bestemt formål, hvorfor han skabte dette og at de enkelte, og i lyset af den evige bestemmelsessted hans skabninger, han Hensigt enten at man skal tilbringe evigheden i himlen, eller at dette bør man tilbringe evigheden i Lake of Fire. Hvis han forudså, at skabe en bestemt person, at vedkommende ville foragte og forkaste Frelseren, men vidste dette på forhånd han ikke desto mindre, bragte denne person i stand, så er det klart, at han designet og ordineret, at denne person skal være evigt tabt. Igen; tro er Guds gave, og formålet at give det kun til en vis indebærer formålet ikke at give det til andre. Uden tro er der ingen frelse-"han ikke tror, skal blive fordømt"-derfor, hvis der var nogle af Adams efterkommere, til hvem han Hensigt ikke at give tro, må det være, fordi han ordinerede, at de skulle blive fordømt.
Ikke alene er der ingen flugt fra disse konklusioner, men historien bekræfter dem. Før den guddommelige inkarnationen, for næsten to tusind år var det store flertal af menneskeheden ladt i stikken af selv de ydre nådemidler, der stillede med ikke prædike Guds ord og med nogen skriftlig åbenbaring af hans vilje. For mange lange århundreder Israel var den eneste nation, som Guddommen forundt nogen særlig opdagelsen af sig selv-"Hvem i tidligere tider lidt alle nationer til at gå i deres egen måde" (# Ac 14:16) - "Du skal kun (Israel) har Jeg kendte alle Jordens Slægter. "(# Am 03:02) derfor som alle andre nationer blev frataget forkyndelsen af Guds ord, de var fremmede for den tro, som kommer derved. (# Ro 10:17) Disse lande var ikke blot uvidende om Gud selv, men af den måde at behage ham, af den sande måde accept med ham, og midlerne til at nå frem til den evige glæde af sig selv.
Nu, hvis Gud havde villet deres frelse, ville han ikke have værdiget dem midlerne til at frelse? Ville han ikke have givet dem alt nødvendigt i den henseende? Men det er en ubestridelig kendsgerning, at han ikke. Hvis det altså kan Guddommen, konsekvent, med hans retfærdighed, barmhjertighed og godgørenhed, nægte at nogle midler til nåde, og lukke dem inde i brutto mørke og vantro (på grund af synder deres forfædre, generationer før), hvorfor skulle Det betragtes som uforenelige med hans Fuldkommenheder at udelukke nogle personer, mange, fra nåde selv, og fra den evige liv, som er forbundet med det? se, at han er Herre og suverænt står for bortskaffelsen begge ende, som betyder, bly, og de midler, der fører til dette formål?
Kommer ned til vore Dage, og til dem i vores eget land, der forlader de næsten unnumberable skarer af unevangelized hedensk-er det ikke indlysende, at der er mange, der bor i lande, hvor evangeliet bliver prædiket, arealer, der er fulde af kirker, der die fremmede for Gud og hans hellighed? True, midler til nåde var tæt på deres hånd, men mange af dem vidste det ikke. Tusindvis er født ind i hjem, hvor de bliver undervist fra barndom til at betragte alle kristne som hyklere og prædikanter som arch humbugs. Andre, er instrueret fra vugge i romersk katolicisme, og er uddannet til at betragte evangeliske kristendom lige så dødbringende kætteri, og Bibelen som en bog meget farligt for dem at læse. Andre, der opdrættes i "Christian Science" familier, kender ikke mere af den sande Kristi evangelium end de unevangelized hedenske. Langt størstedelen af disse dør i fuldkommen uvidenhed om Way of Peace. Nu er vi ikke forpligtet til at konkludere, at det ikke Guds vilje var til at kommunikere nåde til dem? Havde hans vilje er ellers, at han ikke ville have rent faktisk har meddelt sin nåde til dem? Hvis det altså var det Guds vilje, i tide, til at nægte dem sin nåde, må det have været hans vilje fra al evighed, da hans vilje er, som sig selv, det samme i går, og i dag og for evigt. Lad det ikke glemmes, at Guds providences er det kun de manifestationer af hans dekreter: hvad Gud gør i tiden er kun, hvad han Hensigt i evigheden, hans egen vilje at være alene skyld i hele hans handlinger og værker. Derfor fra hans faktisk forlader nogle mænd i sidste impenitency og vantro vi sikkert samle det var hans evige vilje til at gøre det, og følgelig, at han reprobated nogle fra før verdens grundlæggelse.
I Westminster Bekendelse er det sagt, "Gud fra al evighed gjorde ved de mest kloge og hellige forsvarer, som han selv vil, frit og uforanderlig foreordain overhovedet kommer til at gå." Den afdøde Mr. FW Grant-a mest omhyggelige og forsigtige studerende og forfatter-kommentarer til disse ord sagde: "Det er perfekt, guddommeligt sandt, at Gud har indstiftet til hans egen ære overhovedet kommer til at gå." Nu om disse udsagn er sande, er ikke doktrinen om Reprobation oprettet ved dem? Hvad i menneskehedens historie, er det én ting, som ikke ske hver dag? Hvad, men at mænd og kvinder dør, flyt ud af denne verden i en håbløs evighed, en evighed af lidelse og ve. Hvis da Gud har forudordineret overhovedet kommer til at videregive så han må have dekreteret, at store antal mennesker burde gå ud af denne verden der ikke er gemt til at lide evigt i Lake of Fire. Indrømme den generelle forudsætning, er ikke den specifikke konklusion uundgåelig?
Som svar på de foregående afsnit læseren kan sige, er alt dette blot ræsonnement, logisk ingen tvivl om, men alligevel blot slutninger. Meget godt, vil vi nu påpege, at der ud over de ovennævnte konklusioner der er mange passager i den hellige skrift, som er mest klar og tydelig i deres undervisning på denne højtidelige emne; passager, der er for almindeligt at blive misforstået og for stærk til at være omgås. Det undre er, at så mange gode mænd har nægtet deres ubestridelige påstande.
"Joshua i krig i lang tid med alle de konger. Der var ikke en by, der sluttede fred med israelitterne, gemme hivvitterne indbyggerne i Gibeon: alle andre tog de i kamp. For det var af Herren til at forhærde deres hjerter, at de skulle komme mod Israel i kamp, så han kunne ødelægge dem fuldstændig, og at de kunne have nogen fordel, men at han kunne ødelægge dem, som Herren havde befalet Moses. "( # Jos 11:18-20) Hvad kan være tydeligere end dette? Her var et stort antal Kana'anæerne, hvis hjerter til Herren forhærdede, som han havde til Hensigt at aldeles ødelægge, til hvem han viste "ingen fordel". Givet, at de var onde, umoralske, afgudsdyrkende, blev de noget værre end den umoralske, afgudsdyrkende kannibaler af Sydhavsøerne (og mange andre steder), for hvem Gud gav Gospel gennem John G. Paton! Visselig ikke. Så hvorfor ikke Jehova kommando Israel til at undervise i kana'anæerne hans love og instruere dem om ofre til den sande Gud? Tydeligt, fordi han havde markeret dem ud til destruktion, og i bekræftende fald, at der fra al evighed.
"Herren har alle ting for sig selv: ja, den onde for dagen af onde .." (# Pr 16:04) At Herren gjort alt, måske hvert læseren af denne bog vil give mulighed for: at han har gjort alt for selv er ikke så udbredt opfattelse. At Gud har gjort os, ikke for vores egen skyld, men for sig selv, ikke for vores egen lykke, men for hans herlighed, er ikke desto mindre flere gange bekræftet i Skriften-Re 4:11. Men # Pr 16:04 går endnu længere: det udtrykkeligt erklærer, at Herren gjorde ondt på dagen for onde: det var hans design ved at give dem videre. Men hvorfor? Ikke # Ro 9:17 fortælle os, "For Skriften siger til Farao, har Også til dette formål, jeg rejste dig op, så jeg kunne vise min magt i dig, og at mit navn kan blive erklæret undtagelsestilstand i hele hele jorden!" Gud har gjort de ugudelige at der ved udgangen, kan han godtgøre "sin magt"-vise det ved at vise, hvad en let sag er det for ham at undertrykke den tykkeste rebel og at vælte hans mægtigste fjende.
"Og da vil jeg bekende for dem, jeg aldrig vidste du: afvige fra mig, I, som arbejder ugudelighed." (# Mt 7:23) I det foregående kapitel har vist, at ordene "kender" og "forudviden" når den anvendes til Gud i Skriften, har reference ikke blot til hans forudseenhed (dvs. hans nøgne viden på forhånd), men at hans viden om approbation. Når Gud sagde til Israel: "Du har kun jeg kendte af alle familier af jorden," (# Am 03:02) det er klart, at han mente, "Du havde kun jeg enhver positiv hensyn til." Når vi læser i # Ro 11:02 Gud har ikke kastet bort hans folk (Israel), som vidste han forud, "det er indlysende, at det var betød er," Gud har ikke endeligt afvist, at folk, som han har valgt som objekter for hans kærlighed, cf. # De 7:7,8. På samme måde (og det er den eneste mulige måde) skal vi forstå # Mt 7:23. I dommens dag vil Herren sige til mange, jeg "aldrig vidste dig." Bemærk, det er mere end blot "Jeg kender dig ikke." Hans højtidelig erklæring vil blive: "Jeg har aldrig kendt jer"-du var aldrig genstande af mine approbation. Kontrast dette med "jeg kender (kærlighed) mine får, og kendte am (elsket) af mine." (# Joh 10:14) De "får," hans udvalgte, de "få" han gør "ved", men Fortastede, de ikke-valgte, har "mange" han kender ikke nej, ikke engang før verdens grundlæggelse han kender dem, han "ALDRIG" vidste dem!
I # Ro 9:1-33 Læren om Guds suverænitet i sin ansøgning til begge dele, er de udvalgte og Fortastede behandlet på længde. En detaljeret redegørelse for dette vigtige kapitel ville være uden for vores nuværende omfang; alt, hvad vi kan essay er at dvæle ved den del af den, som tydeligst bærer på aspekt af det emne, som vi nu overvejer.
# Ro 9:17 "For Skriften siger til Farao, har Selv for denne samme formål som jeg rejste dig op, så jeg kunne vise mine, magten i dig, og at mit navn kunne erklæres overalt på jorden." Disse ord henviser os tilbage til # Ro 9:13 og # Ro 9:14. I # Ro 9:13 Guds kærlighed til Jacob og hans had til Esau er erklæret. I # Ro 9:14 det er spurgt: "Er der uretfærdighed med Gud?" Og her i # Ro 9:17 Apostelen fortsætter sit svar på indsigelsen. Vi kan ikke gøre det bedre nu, end citerer fra Calvin's bemærkninger til dette vers. "Der er her to ting, der skal overvejes,-den prædestination Faraos at ødelægge, som er at blive henvist til fortiden og alligevel skjulte råd Gud, og saa, design af dette, som var at gøre opmærksom på navn af Gud. Som mange tolke, til at stræbe ændre denne passage, pervertere det, må vi først bemærke, at for ordet "Jeg har rejst dig op," eller rørt op i de hebraiske er, "jeg har udpeget", hvormed det fremgår, at Gud, til at designe viser, at Opsætsighed Faraos ikke ville forhindre ham til at levere sit folk, ikke kun bekræfter, at hans raseri var blevet forudset af ham, og at han havde forberedt midler til at fastholde den, men at han også havde således designedly ordineret det og faktisk for dette formål,-at han kunne udstille en mere berømte bevis for sin egen magt. "Det vil observeres, at Calvin giver som den kraft af det hebraiske ord, som Paulus gør" Til dette formål har jeg rejst dig op, " - "Jeg har valgt". Da dette er det ord, som doktrin og argument af verset vender vi yderligere vil påpege, at gøre dette citat fra # Ex 9:16 Apostelen afviger betydeligt fra det Septuaginta-var gældende på daværende fælles brug, og hvorfra han hyppigst citater-og erstatter en klausul om den første, er givet ved Septuaginta: i stedet for "På denne konto du har været bevaret," han giver "For dette meget ende har jeg rejst dig op"!
Men vi må nu overveje nærmere tale om Faraos som summer op i konkret eksempel den store kontrovers mellem mand og hans maskine. "For nu vil jeg strække ud min hånd, så jeg kan slå dig og dit folk med pest, og du skal være afskåret fra jorden. Og i meget gerning af denne årsag har jeg rejst dig op, for at vise i dig min magt, og at mit navn kan erklæres overalt på jorden. "(# Ex 9:15,16) Efter disse ord vi tilbyde følgende bemærkninger:
Først vi kender fra # Ex 14:01 til 15:27, at Farao var afskåret, at han var afskåret fra Gud, at han var afskåret i meget midt i hans ondskab, at han var afskåret ikke ved sygdom eller af skrøbeligheder, som hændelsen til alderdommen, eller ved hvad mænd sigt en ulykke, men afbrød af den umiddelbare Guds hånd i dommen.
For det andet er det dyrt at Gud oprejste Farao for denne meget end-to "afskære ham", som på det sprog, Det Nye Testamente betyder "ødelagt". Gud aldrig gør noget uden en forudgående design. Ved at give ham er, at bevare ham gennem barndom og barndom, til at øge ham på tronen i Egypten, havde Gud den ene ende i betragtning. At dette var Guds hensigt fremgår klart af hans ord til Moses, før han gik ned til Ægypten, til at kræve af Faraos at Jehovas folk skal have lov til at gå en tre dages tur ud i ørkenen for at tilbede ham "Og Herren sagde til Moses , naar Du gaaer til at vende tilbage til Egypten, se, at du gør alle disse vidundere, før Farao, som jeg har lagt i din hånd: men jeg vil forhærde hans Hjerte, at han skal ikke lade folk gå. "(# Ex 4:21 ) Men ikke kun det, var Guds design og formål erklæret længe før dette. Fire hundrede år tidligere Gud havde sagt til Abraham, "Kend med vished, at dine efterkommere skal være en fremmed i et land, der ikke er deres, og skal tjene dem, og de skal plage dem fire hundrede år, og også, at nation, hvem de skal tjene, vil jeg dommer ". (# Ge 15:13,14) Fra disse ord er det indlysende (en nation og dens konge bliver set på en i Det Gamle Testamente), at Guds hensigt blev dannet længe før han gav Farao væsen.
For det tredje en undersøgelse af Guds forhold til Farao gør det klart, at Egyptens konge virkelig var en "fartøj af vrede monteret på destruktion." Placeret på Egyptens trone, med tøjlerne regeringsskiftet i sine hænder, han sad som leder af den nation, som besatte den første blandt de folkeslag i verden. Der var ingen anden monark på jorden i stand til at kontrollere eller diktere Farao. At en sådan svimmel højde gjorde Gud tage dette Fortastede, og et sådant kursus var et naturligt og nødvendigt skridt for at forberede ham for hans endelige skæbne, for det er en guddommelig aksiom, at "Stolthed gaar før destruktion og en hovmodig ånd, før et fald." Desuden-og det er dybt vigtigt at bemærke, og meget betydelige-Gud fjernet fra Farao den ene passiv tilbageholdenhed, som blev beregnet til at fungere som en check på ham. Det beviste ved Farao af den ubegrænsede beføjelser en konge var indstilling ham over alle juridiske indflydelse og kontrol. Men foruden dette, fjernes Gud Moses fra hans tilstedeværelse og rige. Havde Moses, som ikke kun blev udlært i alle visdom af egypterne, men også havde været opdrættet i Faraos husholdning, været lidt at forblive tæt på tronen, kan der ikke være nogen tvivl om, at hans eksempel og indflydelse var blevet en magtfuld check på Kongens ugudelighed og tyranni. Dette men ikke den eneste årsag, var tydeligvis en af grundene til Gud sendte Moses i Midjan, for det var under hans fravær, at Egyptens umenneskelig konge indrammet hans mest grusomme edicts. Gud designet, ved at fjerne denne begrænsning, at give Farao fuld mulighed for at fylde den fulde mål af hans synder og modnes sig for hans fuldt fortjente, men forudbestemt ruin.
For det fjerde Gud "hærdede" hans hjerte, da han erklærede at han ville. (# Ex 4:21) Dette er i fuld overensstemmelse med erklæringerne af den hellige Skrift-"Forberedelserne i hjertet hos mennesket, og svaret af tungen, er fra Herren" (# Pr 16:01) "The Kongens hjerte er i Herrens Haand, som floder af vand, turneth han det hvorhen han vil ". (# Pr 21:01) Som alle andre konger, Faraos hjerte var i Herrens Haand, og Gud havde både ret og magt til at slå den hvorhen han glad. Og det glæder ham at vende den mod alle gode. Gud fast besluttet på at hindre Farao fra tildeling af en anmodning gennem Moses at lade Israel gå, indtil han fuldt ud havde forberedt ham for hans endelige vælte, og fordi intet mindre end dette ville helt fit ham, Gud forhærdede hans hjerte.
Endelig er det værd at nøje overvejelse at bemærke, hvordan retfærdiggørelse af Gud i sin omgang med Farao har været fuldt dokumenteret. Mest bemærkelsesværdigt er det at opdage, at vi har Faraos egne udsagn til fordel for Gud og mod sig selv! I # Ex 9:15,16 vi lære, hvordan Gud havde fortalt Farao til hvilket formål han havde rejst ham op, og i # Ex 9:27 får vi at vide, at Farao sagde: "Jeg har syndet denne gang: Herren er retfærdig, og jeg og mine folk er onde. "Mark, at det var sagt af Farao, efter at han vidste, at Gud havde rejst ham op for at" afskære ham, "efter hans alvorlige domme var blevet sendt ham, efter at han havde hærdet sit eget hjerte. På dette tidspunkt Farao var temmelig modne til påkendelse, og fuldt indstillet på at afgøre, om Gud havde skadet ham, eller om han havde søgt at skade Gud, og han anerkender fuldt ud, at han havde "syndet", og at Gud var "retfærdige." Igen; vi har vidnet om Moses, der var fuldt bekendt med Guds adfærd mod Farao. Han havde hørt i begyndelsen, hvad der var Guds design i forbindelse med Farao, han havde været vidne til Guds forhold til ham, han havde observeret hans "lange sufferance" mod dette fartøj af vrede monteret på destruktion, og til sidst han havde set ham afskåret i Guddommelige dom på Det Røde Hav. Hvordan kan man så var imponeret Moses? Er han hæve græde af uretfærdighed? Er han tør at opkræve Gud med uretfærdighed? Langt fra det. I stedet siger han: "Hvem er ligesom dig, o Herre, blandt guderne? Hvem er ligesom dig, herlige, i hellighed, frygtelig i roser, gør undere! "(# Ex 15:11)
Var Moses flyttes ved hævngerrig ånd, som han så Israels ærkefjende "cut off" ved vandet i Det Røde Hav? Bestemt ikke. Men at fjerne evigt enhver tvivl på dette score, er det stadig gøres opmærksom på, hvordan det hellige i Himlen, efter at de har været vidne til de ømme domme fra Gud, sunget "sang Moses Guds tjener, og sang Lamb siger, Store og underfulde er dine gerninger, Herre Gud, den Almægtige, retfærdige og sande er dine veje, du King of Nations. "(# Re 15:03) her er så den klimaks, og fuld og endelig retfærdiggørelse af Guds forhold til Farao. Saints i himlen sunget sangen om Moses, hvor denne Guds tjener fejrede Jehovas ros i styrte Farao og hans værter, erklærede, at i så handler Gud var ikke uretfærdige, men retfærdigt og sandt. Vi må tro, derfor, at dommer af alle jordens gjorde ret i at skabe og destruere dette fartøj vrede, Farao.
Sagen om Faraos fastslår princippet og illustrerer læren om Reprobation. Hvis Gud virkelig reprobated Farao, kan vi med rette konkludere, at han reprobates alle andre, som han ikke predestinate at være i overensstemmelse med de image af hans Søn. Denne følgeslutning Apostelen Paulus åbenbart drager af den skæbne, Farao, for i # Ro 9:1-33, efter at have nævnt Guds formål med at rejse op Farao, fortsætter han, "derfor". Sagen om Farao er indført for at bevise teorien om Reprobation som modstykket til læren om valget.
Til sidst vil vi sige, at der Farao Gud viste hverken retfærdighed eller uretfærdighed, men kun hans nøgne suverænitet. Som pottemageren er suveræne i udformningen fartøjer, så Gud er suveræn i udformningen moralske agenter.
# Ro 9:18 "Derfor har han nåde, til hvem han vil have barmhjertighed, og hvem han vil han forhærder". Den "derfor" annoncerer den generelle konklusion, som Apostelen trækker fra alt, hvad han havde sagt i de tre foregående vers i at benægte, at Gud var uretfærdige i at elske Jakob og hader Esau, og specifikt anvender eksemplificeret princip i Guds forhold til Farao. Det spor alt tilbage til den suveræne vilje Creator. Han elsker en og hader en anden, han udøver barmhjertighed mod nogle og hærder andre, uden reference til noget redde sin egen suveræne vilje.
Det, der er mest frastødende at det kødelige sind i ovenstående vers er henvisningen til hærdningen-"Hvem han vil han forhærder"-og det er netop her, at så mange kommentatorer og expositors har forfalsket sandheden. Den mest almindelige opfattelse er, at Apostelen taler om andet end retlige hærdning, dvs en svigte af Gud, fordi disse emner af sin utilfredshed først havde afvist hans sandhed og forladt ham. De, der kæmper om denne fortolkning appel til sådanne skrifter som # Ro 01:19-26-Gud gav dem op, det er (se kontekst) dem, der kendte Gud endnu glorificeret ham ikke som Gud. (# Ro 1:21) Appeal også til # 2th 2:10-12. Men det skal bemærkes, at ordet "hærde" ikke forekomme i nogen af disse passager. Men videre, vi har anført, at # Ro 9:18 har ikke henviser til retslige "hærdning." Apostelen er der ikke tale om dem, der allerede havde vendt ryggen til Guds sandhed i stedet, men er han beskæftiger sig med Guds suverænitet, Guds suverænitet som ikke kun ses i at forbarme sig, til hvem han vil, men også i hærdning hvem han behager. De nøjagtige ord "Hvem han vil"-ikke "alle, der har afvist hans sandhed" - "han forhærder," og det, der kommer umiddelbart efter omtalen af Farao, klart fastsætter deres betydning. Sagen om Farao er klart nok, men manden ved sin ignorerer har gjort sit bedste for at skjule sandheden.
(# Ro 9:18) "Derfor har han nåde, til hvem han vil have barmhjertighed, og hvem han vil han forhærder". Denne bekræftelse af Guds suveræne "hærdning" af syndere "hjerter-i Modsætning fra domstolsprøvelse hærdning-er ikke alene. Mark sprog # Joh 12:37-40 "Men selv om han havde gjort så mange mirakler for dem, men de troede ikke på ham: at sige af profeten Esajas skulle gå i opfyldelse, som han talte, Herre, som hath troede vores rapport? og til hvem hath armen af Herrens blevet afsløret? Derfor kunne de ikke tro (hvorfor?), Fordi det Esajas sagde igen, han har forblindet deres øjne, og forhærdede deres hjerter (hvorfor? Fordi de havde nægtet at tro på Kristus? Dette er den populære tro, men markere svar af Skriften ) at de ikke skulle se med deres øjne, og ikke kan forstå med deres hjerte, og skal omregnes, og jeg vil helbrede dem. "Nu læser, det er bare et spørgsmål om, hvorvidt du ikke vil tro, hvad Gud har åbenbaret i sin Word. Det er ikke et spørgsmål om langvarig søgning eller dyb undersøgelse, men en barnlig ånd, som er nødvendig for at forstå denne doktrin.
(# Ro 9:19) "Det vil såmænd sige så til mig: Hvorfor doth han endnu finde fejl? For hvem har modstået hans vilje? "Er det ikke netop indvending, som er blevet opfordret i dag? Kraften af apostlen spørgsmål her synes at være denne: Da alt er afhængig af Guds vilje, som er irreversibel, og da dette Guds vilje, hvorefter han kan gøre alt som suveræne-siden han kan forbarm dig over, hvem han vil at have barmhjertighed, og kan afvise barmhjertighed og påfører straf, som han vælger at gøre det, hvorfor han ikke vil have barmhjertighed med alle, så få dem til lydige, således og satte konstatering af fejl ud af domstol? Nu skal det særligt bemærkes, at Apostelen ikke afvise jorden, hvor indsigelsen bygger på. Han siger ikke at Gud ikke finde fejl. Heller ikke han sige, Mænd kan modstå hans vilje. Hertil kommer, at han ikke bortforklare indsigelsen ved at sige: Du har helt misforstået min mening, da jeg sagde "Hvem han vil han behandler venligt, og hvem han vil, han behandler alvorligt." Men han siger, "'første, dette er en indvending du har ingen ret til at gøre ", og så, 'Dette er en indvending du ikke har nogen grund til at gøre'" (se Dr. Brown). Indsigelsen var fuldstændig afvises, for det var en besvarelse mod Gud. Det var for at klage over, argumentere imod, hvad Gud havde gjort!
(# Ro 9:19) "Det vil såmænd sige så til mig, Hvorfor, doth han endnu finde fejl? For hvem har modstået hans vilje? "Det sprog, som Apostelen her lægger i munden på den indsigende er så enkel og spidse, at misforståelse burde være umuligt. Hvorfor doth han endnu finde fejl? Nu læser, hvad kan disse ord betyde? Formuler dit eget svar, før man overvejer vores. Kan kraft Apostelen spørgsmål være nogen anden end denne: Hvis det er sandt, at Gud har "nåde", som han testamente, og også "hærder" hvem han vil, så hvad der bliver af menneskeligt ansvar? I et sådant tilfælde mænd er intet bedre end marionetter, og hvis dette er sandt så ville det være uretfærdigt for Gud ved at "finde fejl" med hans hjælpeløse skabninger. Mark ordet "og derefter"-du vil sige så til mig, han anfører (falsk) inferens eller konklusion, som den indsigende trækker fra, hvad Apostelen havde sagt. Og mærke, min læser, Apostelen let så doktrin, han havde formuleret ville rejse dette meget indsigelse, og medmindre vi har skrevet hele denne bog provokerer, i det mindste nogle, (alle hvis kødelige sind er ikke dæmpet af guddommelig nåde) den samme indvendinger, så må det enten være, fordi vi ikke har forelagt doktrin, der er anført i # Ro 9:1-33, eller fordi menneskets natur har ændret sig siden den apostel dag. Overvej nu resten af verset. (# Ro 09:19) Apostelen gentager de samme indvendinger på en lidt anden form, gentager det, således at hans mening ikke kan mis sunderstood-nemlig "For hvem har modstået hans vilje?" Det er tydeligt, at det emne, der øjeblikkelig diskussion vedrører Guds "vilje," dvs hans suveræne måder, som bekræfter, hvad vi har sagt ovenfor på, (# Ro 9:17,18), hvor vi fremførte, at det ikke er retligt hærdning, der er i betragtning (dvs. hærdning på grund af tidligere afvisning af sandheden), men suverænt "hærdning," det er den "hærdning" af en falden og syndig skabning uden anden grund end den, der inheres i den suveræne Guds vilje. Og dermed spørgsmålet, "Hvem har modstået hans vilje?" Hvad så bliver Apostelen siger som svar på disse indvendinger?
{#Ro 9:20} “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, 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.
{#Ro 9:21-23} 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 show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering 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. {#Ro 9:19} 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 {#Ro 9:22} where it can only signify his might; but here in, {#Ro 9:21} 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 #Joh 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 RV employs “right” both in #Joh 1:12 and #Ro 9:21.
{#Ro 9:21} “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 honourable 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 honourable use and another to a less honourable use,” but he speaks of some “vessels” being made ” unto dis honour.” It is true, of course, that God's wisdom will yet be fully vindicated, in as much 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 {#Ro 9:19} 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 {#Ro 9:20} 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 {#Ro 9:21} 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 honour, and another unto dishonour?” It should be carefully noted that the word for “power” here is exousian—an entirely different word from the one translated “power” in the following verse (“to make known his power”), where it is dunamin. 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. {#Ro 9:19} Third, in, {#Ro 9:22,23} 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 #Ro 9:13,17 clearly show us—”For this same purpose have I raised thee (Pharaoh) up”.
{#Ro 9:22} “What if God, willing to show 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, ie, differently with different ones—having mercy on some and hardening others, making one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour. Observe, that here in {#Ro 9:22} the apostle first mentions “vessels of wrath,” before he refers in {#Ro 9:23} 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. {#Ro 9:19} Two reasons are given why God makes some “vessels unto dishonour:” first, to “show 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 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 everyone 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 #Ro 9:11-13: 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?—see #Ex 4:21!
#Ro 9:22 is clearly a continuation in thought of {#Ro 9:21} and #Ro 9:21 is part of the apostle's reply to the questions raised in #Ro 9:20: 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, ie, the glory of his justice, power and wrath. “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” (Robert Haldane).
{#Ro 9:23} “And that he might make known the riches of his 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 #Ro 9:21 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 symbolized 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 prepared for destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction; they 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. #Ro 9:29 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.
Selvom # Ro 9:1-33 indeholder den størst indstilling frem af læren om Reprobation, er der stadig andre passager, der henviser til det, en eller to mere, som vi vil nu kort varsel: -
"Hvad så? Det som Israel søger, for, at han fik det ikke, men valget opnåede det, og resten var hærdede. "(# Ro 11:07 RV) Her har vi to forskellige og klart definerede klasser, der er fastsat i skarp Modsætning: den" valg "og" resten "The One" opnåede, "den anden er" hærdet. "På dette vers vi citerer fra bemærkningerne fra John Bunyan af udødelige hukommelse: -" Det er højtidelige ord: de bryde mellem mænd og kvinder- valget og resten, de valgte og venstre, omfavnede og den afviste. Ved »hviletid« her må nødvendigvis forstås dem, der ikke vælger, fordi der er den ene i opposition til den anden, og hvis ikke vælge, hvem da, men Fortastede? "
Writing to the saints at Thessalonica the apostle declared, “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.” {#1Th 5:9} Now surely it is patent to any impartial mind that this statement is quite pointless if God has not “appointed” any to wrath. To say that God “hath not appointed us to wrath,” clearly implies that there are some whom he has “appointed to wrath,” and were it not that the minds of so many professing Christians are so blinded by prejudice, they could not fail to clearly see this.
”A Stone of stumbling, and a Rock or offence, even to them who stumble at the Word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed”. {#1Pe 2:8} The whereunto manifestly points back to the stumbling at the Word, and their disobedience. Here, then, God expressly affirms that there are some who have been “appointed” (it is the same Greek word as in #1Th 5:9) unto disobedience. Our business is not to reason about it, but to bow to Holy Scripture. Our first duty is not to understand, but to believe what God has said.
”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.” {#2Pe 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 1:4} Attempts have been made to escape the obvious force of this verse by substituting a different translation. The RV gives: “But there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation.” But this altered rendering by no means gets rid of that which is so distasteful to our sensibilities. The question arises, Where were these “of old written of beforehand?” Certainly not in the Old Testament, for nowhere is there any reference there to wicked men creeping into Christian assemblies. If “written of” be the best translation of “prographo,” the reference can only be to the book of the divine decrees. So whichever alternative be selected there can be no evading the fact that certain men are “before of old” marked out by God “unto condemnation.”
”And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him (viz. the Antichrist), every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb that hath been slain” (#Re 13:8, RV compare #Re 17:8). Here, then, is a positive statement affirming that there are those whose names were not written in the Book of Life. Because of this they shall render allegiance to and bow down before the Antichrist.
Here, then, are no less than ten passages which most plainly imply or expressly teach the fact of reprobation. They affirm that the wicked are made for the Day of Evil; that God fashions some vessels unto dis honour; and by his eternal decree (objectively) fits them unto destruction; that they are like brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, being of old ordained unto this condemnation. Therefore in the face of these scriptures we unhesitatingly affirm (after nearly twenty years careful and prayerful study of the subject) that the Word of God unquestionably teaches both Predestination and Reprobation, or to use the words of Calvin, “Eternal Election is God's predestination of some to salvation, and others to destruction”.
Having thus stated the doctrine of Reprobation, as it is presented in Holy Writ, let us now mention one or two important considerations to guard it against abuse and prevent the reader from making any unwarranted deductions:—
First, the doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God purposed to take innocent creatures, make them wicked, and then damn them. Scripture says, “God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions.” {#Ec 7:29} God has not created sinful creatures in order to destroy them, for God is not to be charged with the sin of his creatures. The responsibility and criminality is man's.
God's decree of Reprobation contemplated Adam's race as fallen, sinful, corrupt, guilty. From it God purposed to save a few as the monuments of his sovereign grace; the others he determined to destroy as the exemplification of his justice and severity. In determining to destroy these others, God did them no wrong. They had already fallen in Adam, their legal representative; they are therefore born with a sinful nature, and in their sins he leaves them. Nor can they complain. This is as they wish; they have no for holiness; they love darkness rather than light. Where, then, is there any injustice if God “gives them up to their own hearts' lusts!” {#Ps 81:12}
For det andet, læren om Reprobation betyder ikke Gud nægter at frelse dem som ivrigt søger frelse. Faktum er, at Fortastede har ingen længsel efter Frelseren: de ser i ham ingen skønhed, at de skulle ønske ham. De vil ikke komme til Kristus-Hvorfor skulle Gud tvinge dem til? Han vender sig bort ingen, der gør come-hvor er da uretfærdigt af Gud forenden fastlæggelsen af deres netop doom? None will be punished but for their iniquities; where then, is the supposed tyrannical cruelty of the Divine procedure? Remember that God is the Creator of the wicked, not of their wickedness; he is the Author of their being, but not the Infuser of their sin.
God does not (as we have been slanderously reported to affirm) compel the wicked to sin, as the rider spurs on an unwilling horse. God only says in effect that awful word, “Let them alone.” {#Mt 15:14} He needs only to slacken the reins of providential restraint, and withhold the influence of saving grace, and apostate man will only too soon and too surely, of his own accord, fall by his iniquities. Thus the decree of reprobation neither interferes with the bent of man's own fallen nature, nor serves to render him the less inexcusable.
Third, the decree of Reprobation in no wise conflicts with God's goodness. Though the non-elect are not the objects of his goodness in the same way or to the same extent as the elect are, yet are they not wholly excluded from a participation of it. They enjoy the good things of Providence (temporal blessings) in common with God's own children, and very often to a higher degree. But how do they improve them? Does the (temporal) goodness of God lead them to repent? Nay, verily, they do but “despise his goodness, and forbearance, and longsuffering, and after their hardness and impenitency of heart treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath.” {#Ro 2:4,5} On what righteous ground, then, can they murmur against not being the objects of his benevolence in the endless ages yet to come? Moreover, if it did not clash with God's mercy and kindness to leave the entire body of the fallen angels {#2Pe 2:4} under the guilt of their apostasy; still less can it clash with the Divine perfections to leave some of fallen mankind in their sins and punish them for them.
Finally, let us interpose this necessary caution: It is utterly impossible for any of us, during the present life, to ascertain who are among the reprobate. We must not now so judge any man, no matter how wicked he may be. The vilest sinner, may, for all we know, be included in the election of grace and be one day quickened by the Spirit of grace. Our marching orders are plain, and woe be unto us if we disregard them—”Preach the Gospel to every creature.” When we have done so our skirts are clear. If men refuse to heed, their blood is on their own heads; nevertheless “we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one we are a savour of death unto death; and to the other we are a savour of life unto life.” {#2Co 2:15,16}
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 ones to condemnation. First, we cite #Eze 18:31 —”Why will ye die, O house of Israel?” On this passage we cannot do better than quote from the comments of Augustus Toplady:—”This is a passage very frequently, but very idly, insisted upon by Arminians, as if it were a hammer which would at one stroke crush the whole fabric to powder. But it so happens that the “death” here alluded to is neither spiritual nor eternal death: as is abundantly evident from the whole tenor of the chapter. The death intended by the prophet is a political death; a death of national prosperity, tranquillity, and security. The sense of the question is precisely this: What is it that makes you in love with captivity, banishment, and civil ruin? Abstinence from the worship of images might, as a people, exempt you from these calamities, and once more render you a respectable nation. Are the miseries of public devastation so alluring as to attract your determined pursuit? Why will ye die? die as the house of Israel, and considered as a political body? Thus did the prophet argue the case, at the same time adding—”For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth saith the Lord God, wherefore, turn yourselves, and live ye. “This imports: First, the national captivity of the Jews added nothing to the happiness of God. Second, if the Jews turned from idolatry, and flung away their images, they should not die in a foreign, hostile country, but live peaceably in their own land and enjoy their liberties as an independent people.” To the above we may add: political death must be what is in view in #Eze 18:31,32 for the simple but sufficient reason that they were already spiritually dead!
#Mt 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?” {#Ac 17:3} 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” {#Ac 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 #2Ti 2:25 —”In meekness 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 he “will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth?” {#1Ti 2:4} The reply is, that the words “all” and “all men,” like the term “world,” are often used in a general and relative sense. Let the reader carefully examine the following passages: #Mr 1:5 Joh 6:45,8:2 Ac 21:28,22:15 2Co 3:2 etc., and he will find full proof of our assertion. #1Ti 2:4 cannot teach that God wills the salvation of all mankind, or otherwise all mankind would be saved—”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 unnoticed, 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.
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 taught 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:” {#Lu 24:25} fools because slow of heart; slow of heart, not dull of head!
Once more we would avail ourselves 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 in 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'. {#Ps 51:4} 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 AD) 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-Calvanism 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.
Martin Luther is his most excellent work “De Servo Arbitrio” (Free Will a Slave), wrote: “All things whatsoever arise from, and depend upon, the divine appointments, whereby it was preordained who should receive the Word of Life, and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who should be condemned. This is the very truth which razes the doctrine of free will from its foundations, to wit, that God's eternal love of some men and hatred of others is immutable and cannot be reversed.”
John Fox, whose Book of Martyrs was once the best known work in the English language (alas that it is not so today, when Roman Catholicism is sweeping upon us like a great destructive tidal wave!), wrote:—”Predestination is the eternal decreement of God, purposed before in himself, what should befall all men, either to salvation, or damnation”.
The “Larger Westminster 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 favour as he pleases), hath passed by, and foreordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice”.
John Bunyan, author of “The Pilgrim's Progress,” wrote a whole volume on “Reprobation.” From it we make one brief extract:—”Reprobation is before the person cometh into the world, or hath done good or evil. This is evidenced by #Ro 9:11. Here you find twain in their mother's womb, and both receiving their destiny, not only before they had done good or evil, but before they were in a capacity to do it, they being yet unborn—their destiny, I say, the one unto, the other not unto the blessing of eternal life; the one elect, the other reprobate; the one chosen, the other refused.” In his “Sighs from Hell,” John Bunyan also wrote: “They that do continue to reject and slight the Word of God are such, for the most part, as are ordained to be damned”.
Commenting upon #Ro 9:22 “What if God willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” Jonathan Edwards (Vol. 4, p. 306—1743 AD) 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.”
Augustus Toplady, author of “Rock of Ages” and other sublime hymns, wrote: “God, from all eternity decreed to leave some of Adam's fallen posterity in their sins, and to exclude them from the participation of Christ and his benefits.” And again; “We, with the Scriptures, assert: That there is a predestination of some particular persons to life, for the praise of the glory of divine grace; and also a predestination of other particular persons to death for the glory of divine justice—which death of punishment they shall inevitably undergo, and that justly, on account of their sins”.
George Whitefield, that stalwart of the eighteenth century, used by God in blessing to so many, wrote: “Without doubt, the doctrine of election and reprobation must stand or fall together…I frankly acknowledge I believe the doctrine of Reprobation, that God intends to give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number; and that the rest of mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal death which is its proper wages”.
”Fitted to destruction.” {#Ro 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.”
Were it necessary we are prepared to give quotations from the writings of Wycliffe, Huss, Ridley, Hooper, Cranmer, Ussher, John Trapp, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Manton (Chaplain to Cromwell), John Owen, Witsius, John Gill (predecessor of Spurgeon), and a host of others. We mention this simply to show that many of the most eminent saints in bygone days, the men most widely used of God, held and taught this doctrine which is so bitterly hated in these last days, when men will no longer “endure sound doctrine;” hated by men of lofty pretensions, but who, notwithstanding their boasted orthodoxy and much advertised piety, are not worthy to unfasten the shoes of the faithful and fearless servants of God of other days.
Tags: Sovereinity af Gud
