Poglavlje 5-Suverenitet Boga u odbacivanje. (AW Pink)
"Evo, dakle dobrotu i strogost Božju." {# Ro 11:22}
U posljednjem poglavlju, kada liječenje suvereniteta Boga Oca u spasenje, ispitali smo sedam prolaza koji ga predstavljaju kao stvaranje izbor iz među djecom ljudi, i predestinating određene one biti suobličeni slici Sina njegova. The pažljiv čitatelj će, naravno, pitati, a što onih koji nisu bili "zaređen život vječni?" Odgovor koji se obično vrati na ovo pitanje, čak i onih koji ispovijedaju da vjeruju ono što Sveto pismo uče o Božju suverenost, je, da Bog prolazi ne-bira ih ostavlja na miru da idu svojim putem, a na kraju ih baca u ognjeno jezero, jer su odbili njegov način, te odbacio Spasitelj svoga pruža. Ali to je samo dio istine, s druge strane, ono što je većina uvredljiv za tjelesni um-ni se ignorira ili odbijen.
S obzirom na strašne svetkovinu temu ovdje prije nas, s obzirom na činjenicu da je danas gotovo sve, čak i onih koji dokazuju da su kalvini-odbiti i odbaciti ove doktrine, te s obzirom na činjenicu da je ovo jedna od točaka u našoj knjizi koja se izračunava kako podići najviše kontroverzi, smatramo da proširena istraga u ovaj aspekt Božje istine je zahtijevao. Da je ova grana subjekta Božje suverenosti duboko je tajanstvena smo slobodno dopustiti, ipak, da nema razloga zašto bismo trebali odbaciti. Problem je u tome, danas, postoji toliko mnogo onih koji primaju svjedočanstvo Božje samo utoliko što se mogu na zadovoljavajući način objasniti sve razloge i osnove svog ponašanja, što znači da će prihvatiti ništa osim onoga što se može mjeriti u sitne skale vlastitih ograničenih kapaciteta.
Navodeći da je u svom baldest obliku pokažite sada da se smatra da je, ima Boga predodređena određene one prokletstvo? To mnogi će biti vječno proklet je jasno iz Svetog pisma, da svatko će biti suđeni prema svojim djelima i žeti kao što je posijano, i da je posljedica njegova "prokletstvo je samo" # Ro {03:08} jednako je siguran, i da je Bog, odlučeno je da ne biraju treba izabrati naravno, oni slijede sada se obvezuju da će dokazati.
Iz onoga što je pred nama u prethodnom poglavlju o izborima nekih spasenja, to neminovno će slijediti, čak i ako je Sveto pismo je tiho na to, da mora postojati odbacivanje drugih. Svaki izbor, očito i nužno podrazumijeva odbijanje, jer gdje nema izostavljajući ne može biti izbor. Ako postoji neka kojega je Bog izabrao za spasenje, {# 2Th 02:03} mora postojati drugi koji nisu izabrani na spasenje. Ako postoje neki koji je Otac dao Kristu, {# Joh 6:37} mora postojati drugi koga nije dao do Krista. Ako postoje neke čija imena su napisana u Jaganjčevoj knjizi života, {# Odg 21:27} mora postojati drugi, čija imena nisu napisana tamo. Da je to slučaj u potpunosti će dokazati u nastavku.
Sada svi će priznati da od postanka svijeta Bog svakako predvidje i predvidio tko će a tko neće primiti Krista kao Spasitelja, dakle u davanju bića i rođenja onima koje je znao da odbace Isusa Krista, on je nužno ih je stvorio do prokletstva. Sve što se može reći u odgovoru na ovo je: "Ne, a Bog je predviđati ovi će odbaciti Krista, ali on nije dekretom da bi trebalo. Ali to je prosio za pravi pitanje na pitanje. Bog je definitivno razlog zašto je stvorio ljude, određene svrhe zašto je stvorio ovo i da pojedinac, au pogledu vječnog odredišta svojih stvorenja, on je nakanio bilo da je to treba provesti vječnost u raju ili da to treba provesti vječnost u ognjenom jezeru. Ako je onda je predvidio da se u stvaranju određenoj osobi da je ta osoba bi preziru i odbacuju Spasitelja, ali znajući to on unaprijed, ipak, doveo u postojanje te osobe, onda je jasno da dizajniran i odredio da bi ta osoba trebala biti vječno izgubljen. Opet, vjera je Božji dar, a svrha da ga dati samo neke, uključuje u svrhu da je ne dati drugima. Bez vjere nema spasenja ", on vjeruje da neće biti prokleti", stoga ako je bilo nekih od Adama potomci kojima nije naumio dati vjeru, ona mora biti, jer je on odredio da se oni trebaju biti prokleti.
Ne samo da nema bijega od ovih zaključaka, ali povijest ih potvrđuje. Prije Božanska utjelovljenja, gotovo dvije tisuće godina, velika većina čovječanstva su ostali bez igdje ičega čak i vanjskim sredstvima milosti, što je omiljen bez propovijedanja Božje riječi i bez pisane objave njegove volje. Dugi niz stoljeća Izrael je jedina zemlja kojoj je Božanstvo vouchsafed bilo kakvu posebnu otkriće sebe-"Tko je u prošlim vremenima pretrpjela svih naroda da hodaju na svoj način" {# Ac 14:16} - "Vi samo (Izrael) su I zna sve obitelji na zemlji. "{# Am 03:02} Dakle, kao i svi drugi narodi bili uskraćeni za propovijedanje Riječi Božje, oni su bili stranci u vjeri da dolazi na taj način. {# Ro 10:17} Ti narodi nisu bili samo neznalice samoga Boga, ali na način da ga molim, i pravi način prihvaćanja s njim, a sredstva dolasku na vječno uživanje u sebe.
Sada, ako je Bog htio svoje spasenje, da mu nije vouchsafed im sredstva spasenja? Bi mu nije dao im sve stvari potrebne za tu svrhu? Ali, to je nepobitna činjenica da on nije. Ako je, dakle, može Božanstva, dosljedno, sa svojim pravednost, milosrđe, i dobrohotnost, uskratiti za neke sredstva milosti, te ih zatvorio u bruto tami i nevjere (zbog grijeha njihovih predaka, generacije prije), zašto bi to se nespojivim sa svojim savršenosti isključiti neke osobe, mnogi, iz milosti sebe, i iz tog vječnog života koja je povezana s njom? vidim da je on Gospodin i suverena odlagača oba kraja na kojem se sredstva vode, i sredstva koja vode u tu svrhu?
Dolazeći na naše dana, a onima u našoj vlastitoj zemlji, izostavljajući gotovo unnumberable gužve unevangelized narodima, nije li očito da postoje mnogi koji žive u zemljama gdje se navješćuje evanđelje, zemalja koje su pune crkve, koji umrijeti strancima Bogu i njegovoj svetosti? Istina, sredstva milosti bili blizu njihove ruke, ali mnogi od njih to nije znao. Tisuće su rođeni u kućama u kojima ih se uči od djetinjstva do u obzir sve kršćane kao licemjeri i propovjednici kao luk humbugs. Drugi su upućeni od kolijevke u rimsko katoličanstvo, te su osposobljeni za evanđeosko kršćanstvo u obzir kao smrtonosna hereze, i Biblija kao knjiga vrlo opasno za njih za čitanje. Drugi, uzgajali u "Christian Science" obitelji, ne poznaju više od istinskog Evanđelja Krista nego učiniti unevangelized narodima. Velika većina tih umre u krajnjoj neznanje put mira. Sada se nismo dužni zaključiti da to nije Božja volja da komuniciraju milosti za njih? Imao svoju će inače bio slučaj, ne bi on zapravo imaju priopćiti svoju milost na njih? Ako je, onda, to je bila Božja volja, u vremenu, da odbije da ih svojom milošću, ona mora biti njegova će od vječnosti, od svoje volje, kao samoga sebe, isti jučer, i danas i zauvijek. Neka to ne smije zaboraviti da je Božja providences su samo manifestacija njegove uredbe: ono što Bog čini u vremenu je samo ono što je naumio u vječnosti, svojom voljom kao sama uzrok svih njegovih djela i djela. Stoga iz njegova zapravo ostavljajući neke ljude u finalu impenitency i nevjere mi sigurno skupiti to je bio njegov vječni odlučnost kako to učiniti, i time da je reprobated neke od prije postanka svijeta.
U Westminster Ispovijed je rekao, "Bog od vječnosti učinio najviše mudri i sveti naum svoje volje, slobodno i unchangeably predodrediti god dođe da prođe." Pokojni gospodin Grant FW-a najviše pažljivi i oprezni studenata i pisac-komentiranje na ovim riječima je rekao: "To je savršeno, božanski istina, da je Bog odredio za svoju slavu god dođe da prođe." Sad, ako su te izjave točne, nije doktrina osude utvrđeno njima? Što je, u ljudskoj povijesti, je jedna stvar koja ne dolazi da prođe svaki dan? Ono što, ali da muškarci i žene umiru, pass out ovoga svijeta u vječnost bez nade, vječnost patnje i jad. Ako je onda Bog je predodređena god dođe da prođe onda on mora imati, odlučeno je da veliki broj ljudi treba proći od ovoga svijeta nespremljenih patiti vječno u ognjenom jezeru. Priznajući opće prostor, nije specifičan zaključak neizbježan?
U odgovoru na prethodnim stavcima čitatelj može reći, sve je to jednostavno zaključivanje, logičko bez sumnje, ali ipak samo zaključaka. Vrlo dobro, sada ćemo naglasiti da osim gore navedenih zaključaka postoje mnogi odlomci u Svetom Pismu, koji su najviše jasni i decidirani u nastavi na ovu svečanu predmet, a odlomci koji su preobična da se pogrešno i previše jaka da se izbjegao. Marvel je da imaju toliko dobrih ljudi negirao svoje neprijeporne affirmations.
"Ratovao Jošua dugo vremena s tim kraljevima. Nije bilo ni jednoga grada koji je sklopio mir s sinovima Izraelovim, osim Hivijaca, koji su živjeli u Gibeonu: sve ostale su uzeli u bitke. Za to je od Gospodina da otvrdne srce, da bi trebao doći u boj protiv Izraela, kako bi mogao uništiti ih potpuno, i da možda ne korist, ali da ih uništiti, kako je Jahve naredio Mojsiju. "{ # Jos 11:18-20} Što bi moglo biti plainer od ovoga? Ovdje je velik broj Kanaanaca čijim srcima je Jahve otvrdnuo, koga je naumio potpuno uništiti, kojima je pokazao "ne korist". Odobrava da su opaki, nemoralan, idolopoklonički, bili oni bilo gore nego nemoralno, idolopokloničkih kanibali od South Sea Islands (i mnogim drugim mjestima), za koje je Bog dao Evanđelje po Ivanu G. Paton! Sigurno ne. Onda zašto ne Jehova naredbu Izrael da uče Kanaance njegove zakone, te ih poučiti o žrtvama u pravog Boga? Jednostavno, zato što ih je označio za uništavanje, i ako je tako, da je od vječnosti.
"Gospodin učinio sve za sebe: da, čak i opakih za dan zli .." {# Pr 16:04} da je Gospodin napravio sve, možda svaki čitatelj ove knjige omogućit će: da je on napravio sve za sam ne tako široko vjeruje. To je Bog stvorio nas, a ne za vlastitu sakes, ali za sebe, ne za vlastitu sreću, ali za svoju slavu je, ipak, više puta potvrdio u Bibliji-Re 4:11. Ali # Pr 16:04 ide čak i dalje: on izričito izjavljuje da je Gospodin učinio za dan zli zla: to je bio njegov dizajn u dajući im se. Ali zašto? Ne # Ro 9:17 nam kaže, "Za Sveto pismo govori faraonu, čak i za tu svrhu sam podigao te gore, da ja mogu pokazati svoju moć u tebi, i da se moje ime bi moglo biti proglašeno po svoj zemlji!" Bog je napravio zli da je na kraju, on može dokazati "svoju moć"-to pokazati, pokazujući što jednostavno obzira na to je za njega da ukrotiti stoutest pobuniti i srušiti njegov najmoćniji neprijatelj.
"A onda ću ispovijedati im reče:" nisam znao ti. 'Odlazite od mene, vi koji rade zlodjela "{# Mt 7:23} U prethodnom poglavlju je pokazano da se riječi" zna "i" predznanje " kada se primjenjuju na Boga u Pismu, imaju referencu ne samo na njegovu predviđanje (tj. golim znanje unaprijed), ali da svoje znanje odobrenje. Kada je Bog rekao Izraelu: "Vi samo sam poznata od svih obitelji na zemlji," {# Am 03:02} očito je da misli: "Vi samo da sam bilo povoljnije u odnosu na." Kada čitamo u # Ro 11:02 Bog nije odbacio svoj narod (Izrael), kojima je predvidje, "očito je da ono što je značilo je" Bog nije odbacio napokon da su ljudi koje je izabrao kao objekte svoje ljubavi, usp. # De 7:7,8. Na isti način (i to je jedini mogući način) su mi razumjeti # Mt 07:23. U sudnji dan Gospodin kažem mnogi, "Ja nikad ne znaš." Napomena, to je više nego jednostavno "Znam da ne." Njegov svečanu izjavu bit će: "Ja nikad ne znaš", da ste bili nikad predmeti od moje odobrenje. Usporedite to s "ja znam (ljubav) ovce svoje i sam poznati (voljeni) od mina." {# Joh 10:14} "ovce", svoje izabranike, "malo", on "zna"; ali osuđivati, ne biraju, "mnogi" on ne zna-ne, čak ni prije postanka svijeta nije ih zna-on "nikada" ih znao!
U # Ro 9:1-33 nauk Božje suverenosti u njegovoj primjeni na oba, bira i pokvarenjak se liječi od dužine. Detaljno izlaganje o ovom važnom poglavlju će biti izvan našeg sadašnjeg opsega, sve što možemo esej je da ostane na dio koji većina jasno nosi na aspekt predmeta koji mi se sada razmatra.
# Ro 9:17 Jer Pismo govori faraonu, čak i za tu istu svrhu sam podigao te gore da sam mogao pokazati moje, snaga u tebi, i da se moje ime bi moglo biti proglašeno po svoj zemlji. "Ove nas riječi se odnose natrag na # Ro 09:13 # i Ro 9:14. U # Ro 9:13 Božje ljubavi Jakova i njegovih mržnje Ezavu su objavljene. U # Ro 9:14 je pitao: "Ima li nepravde s Bogom?" I ovdje u # Ro 9:17 apostol nastavlja svoj odgovor na prigovor. Mi ne možemo učiniti bolje nego citat iz Calvinova komentara na ovaj stih. "Postoje ovdje dvije stvari koje treba razmotriti,-the predodređenje faraona u propast, koja se odnosi na prošlost i još skrivene savjet od Boga, a onda, dizajn ovog, koji je trebao obznaniti ime of God. Kao što mnogi tumače, nastoji izmijeniti ovaj odlomak, izopačiti se, prvo moramo promatrati, da se za riječ "sam podigao te gore," ili podiže, u hebrejskom je, "Imam imenovao", po kojem se ona pojavljuje, da je Bog, projektiranje pokazati da neposlušnost faraona neće spriječiti ga da dostavi svoj narod, ne samo potvrđuje da je njegov bijes je bio predviđen od njega, te da je on spreman za to znači zabrana, ali da je također tako s predumišljajem odredio to doista i za tu svrhu,-kako bi mogao izlagati više slavan dokaz svoje moći. "To će se primijetiti da Calvin daje kao snagu Hebrejska riječ koju je Pavao čini" Za tu svrhu sam podigao te gore, " - "Ja sam imenovao". Kao što je to riječ o kojem nauku i argument na stih pretvara mi bi dodatno naglasiti da je u izradi ovaj citat iz # Ex 9:16 apostol značajno odstupa od Septuaginta-verzija zatim u općoj uporabi, a iz koje je najčešće citati i zamjenika klauzulu po prvi koji je dao je Septuaginta: umjesto: "Na ovom si ti račun sačuvana", kazao je daje "Za ovu samom kraju sam podigao te gore"!
Ali mi sada mora uzeti u obzir više detalja slučaja faraona koji sažima u konkretan primjer velike polemike između čovjeka i njegovog Stvoritelja. "Za sada ću ispružiti ruku, da mogu udarati tebe i tvoj narod s kugom, i ti ćeš biti odsječen od zemlje. I u vrlo djelo za ovu uzrok sam podigao te se, za pokazati u tebi mojoj moći, i da moje ime može biti proglašen po svoj zemlji "{# Ex 9:15,16} Nakon tih riječi nudimo sljedeće. komentari:
Prvo, znamo iz # Ex 14:01-15:27 faraon koji je bio odsječen, da je bio odsječen od Boga, da mu je odsječena u samom središtu svoje bezbožnosti, da je bio odsječen ne bolest niti od slabosti koje su incident na starost, ni ono što ljudi pojam nesreće, ali odsječen od neposrednog Božju ruku u presudi.
Drugo, to je dragi Bog uskrisio faraonu za ovu vrlo kraj-da "ga je cut off", koja u jeziku Novoga zavjeta znači "uništiti." Bog nikada ne čini ništa bez prethodnog dizajna. U dajući mu se, u njemu očuvanju kroz rano djetinjstvo i djetinjstvo, u njemu podizanje na prijestolje Egipta, Bog je jedan kraj u prikazu. Da je to bila Božja svrha je jasna iz njegovih riječi Mojsiju prije nego što siđe u Egipat, na zahtjev faraonu da Jehovini bi ljudi trebali biti dozvoljeno da ide tri dana hoda u pustinju da ga štuje, "I Jahve reče Mojsiju: , Kad ti ideš da se vrati u Egipat, vidim da ti ne provedete sve ove čuda pred faraonom, koji sam stavio u ruku, ali ja ću učiniti da otvrdne srce, da neće pustiti narod "{# Ex 4:21. } Ali ne samo to, Bog je dizajn i cilj je bio proglašen davno prije ovoga. Četiri stotine godina ranije je Bog rekao Abrahamu: "Dobro znaj da tvoje će potomstvo biti stranac u zemlji koja nije njihova, te će im služiti, i oni će ih rastužiti četristo godina, te da narod, koga oni će služiti, ja ću suditi ". {# Ge 15:13,14} Iz ovih riječi se vidi (naciju i njegovim kraljem kao gledao kao jedan u Starom zavjetu), da je Božja svrha je nastao mnogo prije nego je dao faraonu bića.
Third, an examination of God's dealings with Pharaoh makes it clear that Egypt's king was indeed a “vessel of wrath fitted to destruction.” Placed on Egypt's throne, with the reins of government in his hands, he sat as head of the nation which occupied the first rank among the peoples of the world. There was no other monarch on earth able to control or dictate to Pharaoh. To such a dizzy height did God raise this reprobate, and such a course was a natural and necessary step to prepare him for his final fate, for it is a divine axiom that “pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Further, —and this is deeply important to note and highly significant—God removed from Pharaoh the one outward restraint which was calculated to act as a check upon him. The bestowing upon Pharaoh of the unlimited powers of a king was setting him above all legal influence and control. But besides this, God removed Moses from his presence and kingdom. Had Moses, who not only was skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians but also had been reared in Pharaoh's household, been suffered to remain in close proximity to the throne, there can be no doubt but that his example and influence had been a powerful check upon the king's wickedness and tyranny. This, though not the only cause, was plainly one reason why God sent Moses into Midian, for it was during his absence that Egypt's inhuman king framed his most cruel edicts. God designed, by removing this restraint, to give Pharaoh full opportunity to fill up the full measure of his sins, and ripen himself for his fully deserved but predestined ruin.
Fourth, God “hardened” his heart as he declared he would. {#Ex 4:21} This is in full accord with the declarations of Holy Scripture—”The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord”; {#Pr 16:1} “The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water, he turneth it whithersoever he will”. {#Pr 21:1} Like all other kings, Pharaoh's heart was in the hand of the Lord; and God had both the right and the power to turn it whithersoever he pleased. And it pleased him to turn it against all good. God determined to hinder Pharaoh from granting his request through Moses to let Israel go, until he had fully prepared him for his final overthrow, and because nothing short of this would fully fit him, God hardened his heart.
Finally, it is worthy of careful consideration to note how the vindication of God in his dealings with Pharaoh has been fully attested. Most remarkable it is to discover that we have Pharaoh's own testimony in favour of God and against himself! In #Ex 9:15,16 we learn how God had told Pharaoh for what purpose he had raised him up, and in #Ex 9:27 we are told that Pharaoh said, “I have sinned this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.” Mark that this was said by Pharaoh after he knew that God had raised him up in order to “cut him off,” after his severe judgments had been sent upon him, after he had hardened his own heart. By this time Pharaoh was fairly ripened for judgment, and fully prepared to decide whether God had injured him, or whether he had sought to injure God; and he fully acknowledges that he had “sinned” and that God was “righteous.” Again; we have the witness of Moses who was fully acquainted with God's conduct toward Pharaoh. He had heard at the beginning what was God's design in connection with Pharaoh; He had witnessed God's dealings with him; he had observed his “long sufferance” toward this vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and at last he had beheld him cut off in Divine judgment at the Red Sea. How then was Moses impressed? Does he raise the cry of injustice? Does he dare to charge God with unrighteousness? Daleko od toga. Instead, he says, “Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious, in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders!” {#Ex 15:11}
Was Moses moved by a vindictive spirit as he saw Israel's arch enemy “cut off” by the waters of the Red Sea? Surely not. But to remove forever all doubt upon this score, it remains to be pointed out how that saints in Heaven, after they have witnessed the sore judgments of God, join in singing “the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of Nations.” {#Re 15:3} here then is the climax, and the full and final vindication of God's dealings with Pharaoh. Saints in heaven join in singing the song of Moses, in which that servant of God celebrated Jehovah's praise in overthrowing Pharaoh and his hosts, declaring that in so acting God was not unrighteous but just and true. We must believe, therefore, that the Judge of all the earth did right in creating and destroying this vessel of wrath, Pharaoh.
The case of Pharaoh establishes the principle and illustrates the doctrine of Reprobation. If God actually reprobated Pharaoh, we may justly conclude that he reprobates all others whom he did not predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. This inference the apostle Paul manifestly draws from the fate of Pharaoh, for in #Ro 9:1-33, after referring to God's purpose in raising up Pharaoh, he continues, “therefore”. The case of Pharaoh is introduced to prove the doctrine of Reprobation as the counterpart of the doctrine of Election.
In conclusion, we would say that in forming Pharaoh God displayed neither justice nor injustice, but only his bare sovereignty. As the potter is sovereign in forming vessels, so God is sovereign in forming moral agents.
#Ro 9:18 “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth”. The “therefore” announces the general conclusion which the apostle draws from all he had said in the three preceding verses in denying that God was unrighteous in loving Jacob and hating Esau, and specifically it applies the principle exemplified in God's dealings with Pharaoh. It traces everything back to the sovereign will of the Creator. He loves one and hates another, he exercises mercy toward some and hardens others, without reference to anything save his own sovereign will.
That which is most repellant to the carnal mind in the above verse is the reference to hardening—”Whom he will he hardeneth”—and it is just here that so many commentators and expositors have adulterated the truth. The most common view is that the apostle is speaking of nothing more than judicial hardening, ie, a forsaking by God because these subjects of his displeasure had first rejected his truth and forsaken him. Those who contend for this interpretation appeal to such scriptures as #Ro 1:19-26—God gave them up, that is (see context) those who knew God yet glorified him not as God. {#Ro 1:21} Appeal is also made to #2Th 2:10-12. But it is to be noted that the word “harden” does not occur in either of these passages. But further, we submit that #Ro 9:18 has no reference whatever to judicial “hardening.” The apostle is not there speaking of those who had already turned their backs on God's truth, but instead, he is dealing with God's sovereignty, God's sovereignty as seen not only in showing mercy to whom he wills, but also in hardening whom he pleases. The exact words are “Whom he will”—not “all who have rejected his truth”—”he hardeneth,” and this, coming immediately after the mention of Pharaoh, clearly fixes their meaning. The case of Pharaoh is plain enough, though man by his glosses has done his best to hide the truth.
{#Ro 9:18} “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth”. This affirmation of God's sovereign “hardening” of sinners' hearts—in contradistinction from judicial hardening—is not alone. Mark the language of #Joh 12:37-40 “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe (why?), because that Isaiah said again, he hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts (why? Because they had refused to believe on Christ? This is the popular belief, but mark the answer of Scripture) that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” Now, reader, it is just a question as to whether or not you will believe what God has revealed in his Word. It is not a matter of prolonged searching or profound study, but a childlike spirit which is needed, in order to understand this doctrine.
{#Ro 9:19} “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” Is not this the very objection which is urged today? The force of the apostle's questions here seems to be this: Since everything is dependent on God's will, which is irreversible, and since this will of God, according to which he can do everything as sovereign—since he can have mercy on whom he wills to have mercy, and can refuse mercy and inflict punishment on whom he chooses to do so—why does he not will to have mercy on all, so as to make them obedient, and thus put finding of fault out of court? Now it should be particularly noted that the apostle does not repudiate the ground on which the objection rests. He does not say God does not find fault. Nor does he say, Men may resist his will. Furthermore, he does not explain away the objection by saying: You have altogether misapprehended my meaning when I said “Whom he wills he treats kindly, and whom he wills he treats severely.” But he says, “'first, this is an objection you have no right to make'; and then, 'This is an objection you have no reason to make'” (see Dr. Brown). The objection was utterly inadmissible, for it was a replying against God. It was to complain about, argue against, what God had done!
{#Ro 9:19} “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why, doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” The language which the apostle here puts into the mouth of the objector is so plain and pointed, that misunderstanding ought to be impossible. Why doth he yet find fault? Now, reader, what can these words mean? Formulate your own reply before considering ours. Can the force of the apostle's question be any other than this: If it is true that God has “mercy” on whom he wills, and also “hardens” whom he wills, then what becomes of human responsibility? In such a case men are nothing better than puppets, and if this be true then it would be unjust for God to “find fault” with his helpless creatures. Mark the word “then”—thou wilt say then unto me—he states the (false) inference or conclusion which the objector draws from what the apostle had been saying. And mark, my reader, the apostle readily saw the doctrine he had formulated would raise this very objection, and unless what we have written throughout this book provokes, in some at least, (all whose carnal minds are not subdued by divine grace) the same objection, then it must be either because we have not presented the doctrine which is set forth in #Ro 9:1-33, or else because human nature has changed since the apostle's day. Consider now the remainder of the verse. {#Ro 9:19} The apostle repeats the same objection in a slightly different form—repeats it so that his meaning may not be mis sunderstood—namely, “For who hath resisted his will?” It is clear then that the subject under immediate discussion relates to God's “will,” ie, his sovereign ways, which confirms what we have said above upon, {#Ro 9:17,18} where we contended that it is not judicial hardening which is in view (that is, hardening because of previous rejection of the truth), but sovereign “hardening,” that is, the “hardening” of a fallen and sinful creature for no other reason than that which inheres in the sovereign will of God. And hence the question, “Who hath resisted his will?” What then does the apostle say in reply to these objections?
{#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.
Prije prolazi na sljedeću stih nas sažeti nastave ove i dvaju prethodnih. U {# Ro 9:19} dva pitanja su pitali: "hoćeš onda reći mi:" Zašto Zar je on još uvijek pronaći grešku? Jer tko ima otpor njegovoj volji? "Na ta pitanja odgovor je trostruko vraća. Prvo, u {# Ro 9:20} apostola niječe stvorenje pravo sjediti u presudi na način Stvoritelj "Ne, ali, čovječe koji si ti da repliest protiv Boga? Zar stvar formirana reći mu da je formirana, zašto si me ovakvim načinio? "Apostol insistira na tome da čestitost Božje volje ne smije dovoditi u pitanje. Što god on ne mora biti u pravu. Drugo, u {# Ro 9:21} apostola izjavljuje da je Stvoritelj ima pravo raspolagati svojim stvorenjima kao što je on smatrao prikladnim-"Zar ne lončar vlast nad glinom, od istoga tijesta, napraviti jedan brod k čast , a još k osramoćenost? "Treba pažljivo uzeti u obzir da riječ" moć "ovdje je exousian-potpuno drugu riječ od one prevedena" moć "u sljedećim stihovima (" obznaniti svoju moć "), gdje je je dunamin. U riječi "? Zar ne lončar vlast nad glinom" to mora biti Božja snaga pravedno vršio, što je u odno-vršenju Božjeg prava u skladu sa svojim pravde, - jer samo tvrdnja njegovih omnipotency ne bi bilo kao odgovor kao Bog će se vratiti na pitanja i. {# Ro 9:19} Treće, u, {# Ro 9:22,23} apostola daje razloge zašto je Bog nastavlja različito s jednim od svojih stvorenja iz drugog: s jedne ruku, to je da "pokaže gnjev" i da "njegova moć poznata," s druge strane, to je da "obznani bogatstvo slave svoje."
"Zar ne lončar vlast nad glinom od istoga tijesta, napraviti jedan brod do čast, i još k osramoćenost?" Sigurno Bog ima pravo to učiniti, jer on je Stvoritelj. Da li on to pravo? Da, kao što je # Ro 9:13,17 jasno pokazuju nam-"Za ovu istu svrhu sam podigao te (faraon) gore".
{# Ro 9:22}: "Što ako je Bog, hoteći očitovati gnjev i da svoju vlast poznato, u silnoj strpljivosti podnosio posude gnjeva, postavljen na propast". Ovdje Apostol nam govori na drugom mjestu, zašto je Bog tako djeluje, tj. drugačije s različitih one-ima milosti na nekim drugima i kaljenje, što jedna posuda k čast i još k sramoti. Poštujte, da ovdje u {} # Ro 9:22 apostol prvi spominje "posude gnjeva", prije nego što se odnosi na {# Ro 9:23} u "posudama milosrđa." Zašto je ovo? Odgovor na ovo pitanje je prvog važnosti: mi odgovor, jer to je "posude gnjeva", koji su subjekti u pogledu prije nego što protivnik u. {# Ro 9:19} Dva su razloga zašto su dati Bog čini neke "posude k osramoćenost: "prvi," pokazati svoj gnjev, "i drugo", kako bi njegova moć poznata ", oba od kojih su na primjeru u slučaju faraona.
Jedna točka u navedenom stihu zahtijeva zasebne razmatranje-"posude gnjeva, postavljen na propast." Privedite objašnjenje koje je dao ovih riječi je da posude gnjeva sebe stane na propast, to je, kasnije su se stane na temelju njihove zloće; i to je tvrdio da nema potrebe za Boga da "ih stane na propast", jer oni su već opremljeni po vlastitom izopačenosti, i da to mora biti pravi smisao tog izraza. Sada, ako je "uništenje" mi razumijemo kazna, to je savršeno točno da ne-bira činiti "sebe u formi," za svakoga će se suditi "po njegovim djelima," i dalje, možemo slobodno dati da subjektivno ne-bira činiti se stane za uništenje. No, točka biti odlučeno je, Je li to ono što je apostol ovdje se odnosi na? I, bez oklijevanja, mi odgovor nije. Vratite se na # Ro 9:11-13: nije Ezav stane sebe da se objekt Božje mržnje, ili je on ne kao prije nego je rođen? Opet, nije faraonu sam sposoban za uništenje, ili nije Bog otvrdne srce pred pošasti su poslali na Egipat-vidi # Ex 4:21?!
# Ro 9:22 jasno je nastavak misli {# Ro 9:21} a Ro 9:21 # dio je apostol odgovor na pitanja u # Ro 9:20: dakle, prilično slijediti iz slici , ona mora biti samoga Boga, koji "odgovara" do uništenja posude gnjeva. Treba li se pitao kako Bog to učini, odgovor, nužno je, objektivno, - on odgovara uništenje ne-bira k svojim prije-koordinira odlukama. Treba li se pitali zašto Bog to učini, odgovor mora biti, promovirati svoju slavu, tj, u slavu njegova pravda, snaga i gnjev. "Zbroj apostola odgovor je ovdje, da je veliki objekt Boga, kako u izboru i osude ljudi, je ono što je mjerodavan za sve drugo u stvaranju ljudi, naime, svoju slavu" (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.
Though #Ro 9:1-33 contains the fullest setting forth of the doctrine of Reprobation, there are still other passages which refer to it, one or two more of which we will now briefly notice:—
”What then? That which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not, but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened.” {#Ro 11:7 RV} Here we have two distinct and clearly defined classes which are set in sharp antithesis: the “election” and “the rest;” the one “obtained,” the other is “hardened.” On this verse we quote from the comments of John Bunyan of immortal memory:—”These are solemn words: they sever between men and men—the election and the rest, the chosen and the left, the embraced and the refused. By 'rest' here must needs be understood those not elect, because set the one in opposition to the other, and if not elect, whom then but reprobate?”
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}
Second, the doctrine of Reprobation does not mean God refuses to save those who earnestly seek salvation. The fact is that the reprobate have no longing for the Saviour: they see in him no beauty that they should desire him. They will not come to Christ—why then should God force them to? He turns away none who do come—where then is the injustice of God fore-determining their just 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.
Bog ne (kao što smo izvijestili slanderously potvrditi) natjerati na grijeh opaki, kao jahač potiče na nerad konja. Bog samo kaže u tome da užasno riječ: "Pustite ih." {# Mt 15:14} On treba samo olabaviti uzde providnosno suzdržanost, a zadržati utjecaj spasiteljsku milost, i čovjek će otpadnik samo prerano i previše sigurno, na vlastitu, pad njegove krivnje. Tako je uredbom osude niti ometa sklonosti čovjeka vlastite pale naravi, niti služi za prikaz mu manje neoprostiv.
Treće, dekretom od osude nikako sukoba s Božjom dobrotom. Iako ne biraju nisu objekti njegove dobrote na isti način ili u istoj mjeri kao i biraju se, ali zar nije u cijelosti isključen iz sudjelovanja u njoj. Oni su uživati u dobrim stvarima Providnosti (vremenske blagoslov) u zajedničko s Božjim vlastite djece, a vrlo često na viši stupanj. Ali kako ih poboljšati? Da li (vremenski) Božja dobrota dovesti ih da se pokaju? Ne, uistinu, oni učiniti, ali "prezirati njegove dobrote, i strpljivosti, i strpljiv, i nakon što je njihova tvrdoća i impenitency srca blaga do k sebi gnjev dan gnjeva." {# Ro 2:4,5} Na što pravednici zemlju, onda, mogu buniti protiv ne kao objekte svoje dobročinstvo u beskrajne dobi još doći? Štoviše, ako to nije sukob s Božje milosrđe i ljubaznost napustiti cijelo tijelo palih anđela {# 2Pe 2:04} pod krivnju svojih otpadništva, još manje mogu to sukob s Bogom savršenosti ostaviti neke palog čovječanstva u svojim grijesima i da ih kazni za njih.
Konačno, neka nam je to potrebno ubaciti oprez: To je sasvim nemoguće za bilo koji od nas, tijekom sadašnjeg života, da se utvrdi tko su među osuđivati. Mi sada ne moraju biti tako suditi bilo kojeg čovjeka, bez obzira koliko on može biti zli. The vilest grešnik, možda, za sve što znamo, biti uključena u izbor milosti i biti jedan dan ubrzao Duhom milosti. Naši marširanje naloga su obični, i jao se k nama, ako smo ih zanemare-"propovijedajte evanđelje svakom stvorenju." Kada smo to učinili naši suknje su jasni. Ako ljudi odbiju da obratite pažnju, njihova krv je na vlastitu glavu, ipak "mi smo Bogu na ugodan miris Kristov, u onima koji se spremaju, a onima koji propadaju. Na jednom smo miris smrti na smrt;. I na druge smo okus života do života "{# 2Co 2:15,16}
Mi sada mora uzeti u obzir broj prelaza koji su često citirani u svrhu pokazuje da Bog nije postavljen određeni plovila do uništenja ili neke zaređen one osudu. Prvo, mi citirati # Eze 18:31 - "Zašto hoćete umrijeti, kućo Izraelova?" Na ovaj odlomak ne možemo učiniti bolje nego citat iz komentara Augustov Toplady: - "Ovo je odlomak vrlo često, ali vrlo dokono , inzistirao je Arminians, kao da je čekić koji bi u jednom potezu zaljubljena cijelu tkaninu u prah. Ali to se događa tako da je "smrt" ovdje aludira nije ni duhovno ni vječne smrti: kao što je posve vidljivo iz cijele tenor poglavlja. Smrt za koju prorok je politička smrt, a smrt nacionalnog prosperiteta, mira i sigurnosti. Smisao pitanja je upravo to: Što je to što vas čini zaljubljen u zatočeništvu, progonstva, te civilnog propast? Apstinencija od obožavanje slike mogu, kao ljudi, oslobođeni od ove nesreće, i još jednom vam pružili respektabilan narod. Jesu li bijede javnih devastacije tako primamljiv kako bi privukli vašu određuje težnja? Zašto vi umrijeti? umrijeti kao što se dom Izraelov, i smatra političko tijelo? Tako je prorok tvrde slučaj, u isto vrijeme dodajući-"Jer ja nemam zadovoljstvo u smrti onoga koji umire veli Jahve, Bog, zašto, okrenuti sebi, i živjeti vi. "Ovo uvoza: Prvo, nacionalna udes Židova dodano ništa za sreću Boga. Drugo, ako se Židovi okrenuli od idolopoklonstva, i bacili daleko njihove slike, oni ne bi trebali umrijeti u stranoj, neprijateljski države, ali žive u miru u svojoj zemlji i uživati u njihovoj slobode kao nezavisni ljudi "gore možemo dodati.: politička smrt mora biti ono što je pogled na Eze # 18:31,32 za jednostavan, ali dovoljan razlog da su već duhovno mrtav!
# Mt 25:41 se često navodi kako bi pokazao da Bog nije postavljen određeni plovila uništenja "Odlazite od mene, prokleti, u oganj vječni, pripravljen đavlu i anđelima njegovim." To je, zapravo, jedan od glavni stihove oslonili na pobiti doktrine osude. Ali mi podnijeti da nedvosmislen riječ ovdje nije "za" ali "Devil". Ovaj stih (vidi kontekst) navode o težini presude koja čeka izgubio. Drugim riječima, iznad Pismo izražava awfulness u oganj vječni, a ne subjekte da-ako se vatra ", pripravljen đavlu i anđelima njegovim!", Onda kako će biti nedopustiv! Ako je mjesto vječne muke u kojima je proklet će se baciti je isti kao i onaj u kojem Božja neprijatelja će pretrpjeti, kako strašno da se mora biti mjesto!
Opet: ako je Bog odabrao samo one određene za spasenje, zašto smo rekli da je Bog "sada zapovijeda svim ljudima posvuda da se pokaju?" {# Ac 17:03} Da Bog zapovijeda "svim ljudima" da se pokaju, ali je izvršenje njegovih pravedni tvrdi kako je moralna guverner svijeta. Kako je on mogao učiniti manje, budući da su svi ljudi svugdje sagriješili protiv njega? Nadalje, da Bog zapovijeda svim ljudima posvuda da se pokaju tvrdi univerzalnost stvorenje odgovornosti. Ali ovo Pismo se ne može izjaviti da je Božja zadovoljstvo "dati pokajanje" {# Ac 5:31} svim ljudima posvuda. Što je apostol Pavao ne vjerujem da je Bog dao pokajanja svaku dušu je vidljivo iz njegovih riječi u # 2Ti 2:25 - "U krotkosti naložio one koji se protive, a ako Bog peradventure će im dati pokajanje priznanje istine."
Opet, mi smo pitali, ako je Bog "odredio" samo određenih one za vječni život, zašto onda čitamo da "će svi ljudi biti spašeni, i doći do spoznaje istine"? {# 1Ti 2: 4} odgovor je, da riječi "svi" i "svi ljudi", kao što je pojam "svijet", često se koriste u opće i relativnom smislu. Neka čitatelj pažljivo ispitati sljedeće odlomke: # Mr 01:05 Joh 6:45,8:2 Ac 21:28,22:15 2Co 03:02 i sl., i on će se naći puno dokaz naše tvrdnje. # 1Ti 2:04 ne mogu naučiti da je Božja volja spasenje svih ljudi, ili na drugi način cijelo čovječanstvo će biti spremljene-"Ono što mu duša želi", čak da je on čini! "{# Job 23:13}
Opet, mi smo pitali, ne Pismo deklarirati, opet i opet, da Bog postoji "pristranosti osoba?" Mi odgovor, to sigurno ne, i Božju milost izboru to i dokazuje. Sedam Jišajeva sina, iako stariji i tjelesno nadmoćne Davidu, se donosi, dok je mladi dječak pastir je uzdignut na Izrael prijestolja. Pismoznanci i odvjetnici proći nezapaženo, a neznalica ribari su izabrali da budu apostoli Jaganjca. Božanska istina je skrivena od mudrih i razumnih, a objavio malenima umjesto. Velika većina od mudrih i plemenitih se zanemaruju, dok je slaba, baze, prezrene, nazivaju se i spasio. Bludnice i carinici slatko su prisiljeni da dođu u Evanđelju Blagdan, dok su self-pravedni farizej pretrpio poginuti u moralnosti svoje besprijekoran. Uistinu, Bog je "nema pristranosti" osoba ili on ne bi me spasio.
To je nauk odbacivanje je "teško reći", na tjelesni um je spremno priznao, ali, to je bilo "teže" od onog vječne kazne? To je jasno učio u Pismu imamo nastojali pokazati, a to nije za nas izabrati od istine otkrila u Riječi Božjoj. Neka oni koji su skloni primiti one doktrine koje se preporučujem svoju presudu, a koji odbacuju one koji ih ne može u potpunosti razumjeti, sjetite se onih oštar riječi našeg Gospodina, "O budale, i srca spora da vjerujete što god su proroci navijestili : "{# Lu 24:25} budale zbog spora srca, srca spora, a ne dosadne glave!
Još jednom bismo iskoristiti sami jezika Calvin: "Ali, kao što sam ja dosad samo recitirala takve stvari kao što su isporučena bez ikakvih nejasnoća ili dvosmislenosti u Svetom pismu, neka osoba koja ne ustručavajte se brand sa sramota onih obećanja Nebo, pazi kakve opozicije oni čine. Jer, ako oni pretvaraju neznanje, sa željom da se pohvali za njihovu skromnost, što je veća primjer ponosa može se shvatiti, nego da se suprotstavi jedna mala riječ autoritet Božje! kao, "Čini se inače mi se" ili "Ja bih radije ne miješati s ovog predmeta." 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 of God
