第5章-的主权，在非难的神。（胡粉红色）
“看哪，因此，善良和上帝的严重性。”（＃）滚装船11:22
在最后一章时，神的主权治疗在拯救父亲，我们研究的7个通道，使这些地区代表之间的男性从孩子选择了他，predestinating一定的应该符合他的儿子的形象。 周到的读者自然会问，什么样的人谁不是“祝圣的永恒的生命吗？”通常是返回到这个问题的答案，甚至那些谁自称相信圣经的教导关于神的主权，是上帝由非选举的推移，使他们独自走自己的路，并最终使人入火湖，因为他们拒绝他的方式，并拒绝了他提供的救主。 但是，这只是事实的一部分，其他部分看起来也是最反感的肉体心态，或者是忽视或否认。
鉴于这一问题的严肃性在这里可怕摆在我们面前的事实看来，今天几乎所有的，甚至那些谁自称是加尔文教派，拒绝和否定这一理论，并在事实上，这是其中一点看法在我们的书是提高计算最具争议，我们认为这是把上帝的真理方面是要求延长调查。 这是这个分支学科，是上帝的主权自由让我们深刻地神秘，然而，这是我们应该没有理由拒绝它。 麻烦的是，现在有这么多谁得到神的见证只有这样，就可以圆满解释所有的原因，他的行为，这意味着他们将接受什么，但它可以测量小的理由秤自己的能力有限。
在其baldest形式说明这一点现在就必须考虑它是有一定的上帝注定要诅咒？ 尽管很多人都将永远被诅咒是从经文清楚，每个人会根据他的判断作品和收获，因为他已经播下，并因此而他的“诅咒是正义的，”（＃）滚装船3时08分，同样肯定的是，并认为上帝颁布法令，非选举的过程中，他们应该选择跟随我们现在进行证明。
从摆在我们面前已经有什么在前面有关章节的一些拯救选举，这将不可避免地跟随，即使圣经一直对它保持沉默，必须有一个别人的拒绝。 每一个选择，显然与必然意味着拒绝，因为那里是那里没有离开，就没有选择。 如果有一些人，上帝已经选出，要救，）（＃帖2时03分必须有没有谁当选，要救别人。 如果有一些父亲给基督，并由6时37）（＃必须有其他人，他没有给你们的基督。 如果有，其是在羔羊生命册上的姓名，再21:27）（＃必须有其他的不写有名字。 这是这种情况，我们应充分证明如下。
现在大家都会承认，从基础的世界上帝一定会foreknew和预见到谁，谁也不会接受他们的救主基督，在提供福利和生育那些他知道会拒绝基督因此，他一定在他们那里诅咒。 所有这一切可以在答复说，这是，否，而这些神也预知的将拒绝基督，但他并没有法令，他们应该的。 但是，这是一个问题的真正的问题在乞讨。 上帝有一个明确的原因，他创造的男子，一个特定的目的为何，他创造了这个和个人，并在他的永恒的目标生物的看法，他旨意，这不是一个应该花费在天堂永恒，或者是一个应该花的永恒在火湖。 如果当时他预见到，在创造一个人，这个人一定会鄙视和拒绝的救世主，但他事先知道这一点，却带给该人进入的存在，那么很明显，他设计并受戒，该人应该永远失去了。 再次，信心是上帝的礼物，并给它的目的只是一些，涉及的目的，不给他人。 没有信仰，没有得救，“他说，不信必被定罪”，因此，如果有亚当的后裔，他旨意的一些人不给信仰，它必须是，因为他受戒，他们应该被定罪。
不仅有这些结论没有逃脱，但历史证明他们。 前神的化身，差不多两千年来，人类的绝大多数人离开了，即使是贫困的宽限期外部手段，而没有神的话语和没有说教，他将书面启示青睐。 对于许多长期世纪以色列是唯一国家，以任何人的神赐予他自己特殊的发现，“谁遭受了从前所有的国家走在他们自己的方式”（）＃徒14时16分 - “你只（以色列）我知道所有的地球家庭。“（＃）上午3时02分结果，因为所有其他国家是上帝的道理传被剥夺，他们的信念来到从而陌生人。 （＃滚装船10:17）这些国家不仅是神自己不懂，但他的方式来请他，他接受了与真实的方式，以及在对自己永远享受抵达手段。
现在，如果上帝意志的救赎，他会不会赐予他们拯救的手段？ 难道他不是已经给了他们一切必要为此目的？ 但它是一个事实，即他没有否认此事。 如果，那么，神能，始终与他的正义，怜悯，仁慈，否定了一些优雅的手段，并关闭他们在总黑暗和不信，因为他们的祖先，在几代人的罪孽（），为什么要它被视为不符合他的完善，以排除一些人，许多人，从自己的宽限期，从永恒的生命，这是与它有关？ 看到他是主，最终都以该方式导致主权处置和手段，导致这一目标？
下来我们自己的一天，在我们自己的国家，离开出unevangelized异教徒，这不是明显，在那里有福音传给他们，土地是教会，许多人生活的全部土地几乎unnumberable群众的谁上帝和他的圣洁死陌生人？ 诚然，宽限期手段接近他们的手，但很多却不知道。 数千人出生在哪里，他们是从婴儿教视为伪君子和拱humbugs传教士所有基督徒的家园。 其他人，得到指示从罗马天主教的摇篮，是致命的培训视为异端福音派基督教，圣经作为他们高度危险的书阅读。 其他，在“基督教科学饲养的”家庭，不知道真正的基督福音超过做unevangelized异教徒。 这些在和平路全然无知死的绝大多数。 现在，我们没有义务来结束，这是不是神的旨意传达给他们的恩典？ 如果他的意愿发展的话，他会不会真的向他们传达他的恩典？ 如果，那么，这是上帝的意志，在时间，拒绝他们的恩典，它必须从所有永恒他的意愿，因为他的意志，正如他自己，同样的昨天，今天和永远。 请不要忘记，上帝的providences只不过是他的法令的表现：什么上帝不只是在什么时间，他在永恒，他自己是他的一切行为和单独工作的事业就会旨意。 因此，从他留下的最后impenitency实际和不信，我们稳妥地搜集资料，是他永远的决心，以便做一些男人，并因此，他reprobated从之前的世界的基础部分。
在西敏寺自白有人说，“所有由他自己的意志最明智的和神圣的律师，没有永恒的神的自由和不变地注定任何涉及到过去的。”已故的格兰特先生的防火墙，一个最认真和谨慎的学生，作家评论说这些话：“这是完美，神真实的，上帝已经给他自己的荣耀来通过任何受戒。”现在，如果这些陈述是真实的，是不是非难他们所建立的学说？ 那么，人类的历史，是一件事不来度过每一天？ 什么，但是，男人和妇女死亡，传递到一个没有希望的永恒，一个永恒的痛苦和疾苦离开这个世界。 如果当时上帝注定任何涉及到那么他必须通过颁布法令，人类应该通过广大出这个世界上遭受未保存在火湖永远。 一般承认的前提下，是不是具体的结论是不可避免的？
在回答前几段的读者可能会说，这一切仅仅是推理，逻辑毫无疑问，但还只是推论。 好吧，我们现在指出，除了有上述结论是在圣经，其中有许多段落是在这个庄严的题目最清晰，明确的教学;通道是过于朴素被误解，过于强烈的要回避。 在惊叹的是，这么多好人都否认了其无可否认的肯定。
“约书亚使战争与所有那些国王长的时间。 没有一个城市提出与以色列和平的儿童，保存希未人的基遍的居民：他们在战斗中的所有其他了。 因为这是主的硬心肠，他们应该对以色列的战斗中来，他完全可能会破坏他们，他们可能没有赞成，但他可能会破坏他们，正如耶和华吩咐摩西的。“（ ＃何11:18-20）有什么能比这浅显？ 这里是一个迦南人的心中的上帝硬化，正是他自己旨意，以彻底摧毁大量，向他表明“不支持”。 想当然地认为他们是邪恶的，不道德的，偶像崇拜，是比他们更差不道德，南海群岛（和许多其他地方盲目崇拜的食人者），向谁上帝给了通过约翰G佩顿的福音！ 无疑不是。 那么为什么不耶和华命令以色列的迦南人教他有关的法律和指导他们的牺牲，以真正的上帝？ 很明显，因为他已经明显出来销毁，如果是这样，从所有永恒。
“上帝救了自己所有的东西：是的，即使是邪恶的邪恶..天”（＃）镨16:4，耶和华作出一切，也许这本书的读者都将允许：他提出的所有自己也不是如此广泛地相信。 上帝造的，不是为我们自己的缘故，而是为自己，不为我们自己的幸福，但他的荣耀;，毕竟是多次在圣经，再4点11肯定。 不过＃镨16:4甚至更进一步：它明确宣布，主为一天中的恶人的邪恶：这是他在给他们正在设计。 但是，为什么？ 不＃滚装9时17分告诉我们：“因为经上说对法老，即使有这个目的，我将你兴起来，我可能会显示在你我的力量，并要使我的名传遍地球上宣布！”神使恶人，在结束时，他可能会表现出“自己的权力”，展示通过展示什么是容易的事，是他征服矮胖叛乱，推翻他的最强大的敌人。
“然后将我对他们宣称，我从来不知道你：离开我，你们的工作的罪孽。”（＃）山7:23在前面的章节已经表明，将“知道”和“预知”当应用在圣经的上帝，不是简单地提及他的先见之明（即他事前裸知识），但他对知识的赞许。 当神说以色列，“只要我的所有已知的地球家庭，”（3:2）＃很显然，他的意思，“你只有我任何有利的方面。”当我们阅读＃滚装11:2神没有抛弃他的人（以色列）他foreknew，“这是明显的标志是什么，”上帝还没有最终拒绝了这一人，他曾作为他的爱，比照的对象选择的人。 ＃德7:7,8。 以同样的方式（而且是唯一可行的方法）是我们了解＃山7点23分。 在审判的主会说，你们很多天，“我从来不知道你。”注意，它比简单的“我知道你不是。”他的庄严宣言将是，“我从来不知道你”，你从来都不是我认同的对象。 与此相反，“我知道（爱）我的羊，我知道（爱）我的。”）（＃并由10点14分的“羊”，他选出的“少数”，他是“知道，”但堕落的，非选举，“多”，他不知道，甚至在没有任何基础的世界，他知道他们，他“从来没有”认识他们！
在＃滚装船9:1-33神的主权学说的应用，与这两个由选举产生的和堕落的是在治疗的长度。 这方面的一个重要章节详细论述将超出我们目前的范围，所有的文章，是我们可以进一步讨论有关的最清楚哪部分的主题后，我们现在考虑的方面承担。
＃滚装9:17他说：“经上说对法老，因此即使在同一个目的，我将你兴起来，我可以表达我在你的权力，并要使我的名传遍天下。”这句话是指我们回＃和＃滚装船滚装船9:13 9:14。 在＃滚装9:13神爱雅各和以扫他的仇恨被宣布。 在＃滚装9:14有人问：“有没有不义的神吗？”，并在这里＃滚装9:17使徒继续他的答复异议。 我们不能比现在做得更好后，这节经文卡尔文的评论报价。 “这里有两个要考虑，法老的宿命破坏，这就是被称为过去，但神的隐藏的律师，事情，然后，这个设计的，这是使已知的名称神。 正如许多口译员，争取修改此通道，妨碍它，我们必须先观察，该单词“我将你兴起来，”还是激起了，在希伯来文是：“我已任命”，其中显示，上帝，设计，显示了法老contumacy不会阻止他向他的人民，不但肯定了他的愤怒是由他所预见的，而且他已经准备抑制它的意思，但他也因此计划地祝圣它乃至为此，-，他可能表现出自己的力量更加辉煌的证据。“这将是观察到卡尔文作为希伯来文，其中保罗呈现”为此我已经将你兴起来，力使“ - “我已任命”。 由于这是文字上的理论和论据的诗句，我们将进一步打开指出，在作出这项由前9:16使徒＃报价明显偏离七十，然后在共同的版本使用，并从他最常见的报价和代用品最早是由七十给予：不是“在这个帐户你既保留下来，”他给他说：“这个月底，我将你兴起来”的条款！
但我们现在必须考虑更详细的法老案件具体的例子总结了人与造他的很大争议。 他说：“现在我会伸出我的手，我可以用瘟疫击杀你和你的百姓，你也被切断从地上。 在非常契约为这项事业有我将你兴起来，为显示在你我的力量，并认为我的名传遍天下。“（当这些话，我们提供前9:15,16）＃以下评论：
首先，我们知道从＃前14:1-15:27法老被切断，他被切断了神，他被切断在他的邪恶非常时期，他被切断疾病，还是在通过这些事件的软弱到老，也不是什么人长期意外，但将被上帝的手立即关闭的判断。
二是提出了亲爱的，上帝为这个最终以“打断了他，”法老这在新约圣经的语言手段“破坏。”上帝从来不会不经原设计任何东西。 给他福利，维护婴儿和儿童他通过提高他向埃及的宝座，神都有一个观点结束。 这种是上帝的宗旨是明确的从他的话对摩西之前，他就下到埃及，法老的要求耶和华的人应该被允许进入崇拜旷野三天的路程他，“耶和华对摩西说： ，当你行走进入埃及回来，看到你做所有这些奇迹法老面前，我已经在你的手放在：但我会更加坚定他的心，他不得让百姓去。“（＃前4点21分）但是，不但如此，上帝的设计和目的是长期在此之前宣布。 四百年以前神对亚伯拉罕说，“要知道，一个保证你的种子应当是在土地，是不是自己的陌生人，并应为他们服务，他们必折磨他们四百年，并且该国，其中他们的任期，我将法官“。 （＃葛15:13,14从这些词语）这是显而易见的（一个国家，其国王被看作是一个在旧约），上帝的目的是成立不久，他正在给法老。
第三，一个与法老神的交易查核则在于明确指出，埃及的国王确实是愤怒“船只装有毁灭。”埃及的宝座放置在他手中的政府缰绳，他坐在作为国家的占领头在世界各国人民的第一级。 地球上有没有能够控制或支配其他法老君主。 对于这样一个头晕目眩的高度，神提出这个恶棍，而这样的过程是一个自然和必要的步骤，准备他的最后命运他，因为这是一个神圣的格言，“先破坏和傲慢的精神感到骄傲前头跌倒。”此外，和这是非常重要的注意和高度显着，上帝免去法老的限制是一个向外计算，作为一个对他检查。 在后一个国王赐予的无限权力法老首先是制定法律的影响和控制他。 但是，除了这个，神免去其存在和王国摩西。 如果摩西，谁不仅熟练的所有埃及人的智慧，但也已被饲养在法老的家庭，一直受到在附近留了王位，但毫无疑问，但认为他的榜样和影响力已被一powerful检查后，国王的邪恶和暴政。 这虽然不是唯一的原因，原因之一显然是上帝派到甸摩西，因为在他缺席的是，埃及的不人道王框他最残酷的法令。 上帝设计的，通过消除这种限制，给予充分的机会法老填补了他的罪过充分的措施，并为他的成熟完全当之无愧，但注定毁灭自己。
第四，神“硬化”他的心，正如他宣布，他会的。 （＃）这是前4点21分，在与圣经，“在人的心脏的筹备工作，并回答了舌头，从主是”完全符合申报镨16时01（＃）“的王的心在耶和华的手，因为水的河流，但他好像蒙着脸，他无论往何处会“。 21时01）（＃镨像所有其他的国王，法老的心在耶和华的手，神了两种权利和权力，把它无论往何处，他感到高兴。 它高兴他又对所有利益。 上帝决心阻碍授予他通过摩西请求法老让以色列人去，直到他有充分的准备为他的最终推翻他，并没有因为这将完全符合他的话，上帝硬着心。
最后，经过慎重的考虑，说明如何在上帝的交往与法老332已经完全证明值得。 最引人注目的是，我们发现有法老的自己的证词在上帝的恩赐和对自己！ 在＃前9:15,16我们学习如何上帝告诉法老出于何种目的，他提出了他，并在＃前9:27告诉我们法老说，“我有罪了这个时间：耶和华是公义的，我和我的人是邪恶的。“马克，这是由法老后说，他知道上帝在他提出了以”打断了他，“严重的判断后，他被派往他，之后他自己的硬心脏。 通过这一法老是相当成熟的时间判断，并充分准备，以决定是否上帝已经受伤他，或者他是否曾试图伤害神，他完全承认，他“有罪”，上帝是“正义的。”又;我们有充分了解谁是见证摩西与神的对法老的行为。 他听到一开始什么是上帝与法老连接设计;他曾目睹了他神的交易，他已注意到他的“长期默许对这种愤怒船只装有毁灭”，以及最后他曾看见他切断神圣的判决在红海。 当时摩西留下深刻的印象如何？ 他是否提高不公正哭？ 他是否敢负责与不义的神？ 远非如此。 相反，他说：“谁像你，哦，主神之一，？ 谁像你，在圣洁的光辉，恐惧，赞美，做奇事！“（＃）前15:11
摩西是一名怀恨在心的精神所感动，因为他看到了以色列的主要敌人“切断由红海水域”？ 当然不会。 但是，为了消除因这个分数永远都怀疑，但它仍然要指出的是如何在天堂圣人，在他们见证了神的疼痛判断，共同歌唱“摩西的歌神的仆人，和歌兰姆说，伟大而奇妙的是你的作品，主神全能者，公正和真实的是你的方式，你的国家的国王。“（＃）这里再然后是15点03分的高潮，而上帝的交往与全面和最终平反法老。 在天上的圣徒一起唱摩西的歌，其中的神的仆人，庆祝推翻法老和他的东道主耶和华的赞美，声称在这样做是不是不义的神，但公正和真实。 我们必须相信，因此，地球上的所有法官的决定是正确的创建和销毁这种愤怒船只，法老。
法老的情况下确立的原则和理论说明了非难。 如果上帝真的reprobated法老，我们可以理直气壮地得出结论，他弃绝的所有其他人，他没有注定要符合他的儿子的形象。 这一推断，使徒保罗显然吸引了来自法老的命运，在＃滚装9:1-33，指的升起后法老神的目的，他将继续为“因此”。 法老的情况介绍，证明作为选举原则对应的非难学说。
最后，我们要说，在形成法老神既不公正，也不显示不公正，但只有他裸露的主权。 由于波特是主权形成的船只，所以上帝是主权形成的道德代理人。
＃滚装9时18“，所以祂所怜悯他的人，他会怜悯，他将他和谁刚硬”。 在“因此”宣布的一般结论，所有的使徒，他说，在过去三个诗句否认上帝是不义的热爱雅各和以扫恨，特别是适用的原则体现在借鉴与法老神的交易。 它的痕迹都回到了造物主的主权意志。 他热爱和憎恨另外，他对一些练习和他人未经变硬，以挽救他自己的事情的主权意志的摆布。
这是最剂在上述诗句的肉体的心灵是硬化的提述，“人，他将他刚硬”，而且它只是在这里有这么多评论家和解释者有掺假真相。 最常见的看法是，使徒是什么比司法硬化，即一讲放弃更神，因为他的不满，这些问题最初拒绝了他的真理，抛弃了他。 这些谁呼吁为这一解释为＃滚装1时19分- 26 -上帝给了他们这样的经文抗衡了，这是（见背景）谁知道那些尚未神却不当作神荣耀他。 1:21）（＃滚装上诉也作出＃帖后2:10-12。 但是，必须指出，单词“硬”不发生在这些通道的。 但进一步，我们提出一点＃滚装9:18没有提及任何司法“硬化。”使徒是不存在的那些谁已经把他们的背上神的真理，而是他在处理上与上帝的主权，上帝的主权不仅体现在展示怜悯的人，他的意志，而且在硬化的人，他为所欲为。 确切的词是“被他”而不是“所有谁也拒绝了他的真理” - “他刚硬”，这样，未来的法老后，立即提，明确修复的意义。 法老的情况是不够清楚，虽然他粉饰男子已尽力掩盖真相。
滚装9:18（＃）“所以祂所怜悯他的人，他会怜悯，他将他和谁刚硬”。 这上帝的主权“硬化”的肯定罪人的心，在对比从司法硬化，并不孤单。 标记语言的＃并由12:37-40“他虽然在他们面前行了许多奇迹，但他们不信他：说，以赛亚先知说可能实现，这是他说话的，主，谁相信上帝我们的报告？ 向谁主的手臂被发现？ 因此，他们不能相信（为什么？），因为以赛亚又说，他祂所蒙蔽他们的眼睛，硬了心（为什么呢，因为他们拒绝相信基督？这是民间信仰，但马克的圣经答案）他们不应该看在眼里，也不知道他们的心，和转换，以及我要医治他们。“现在，读者，它只是一个问题，即是否不相信你会what has流露在神字。 这不是一个长期搜索或深入研究，但问题是一个天真的精神需要，为了理解这个学说。
滚装9:19（＃）“9:19这样，你对我说，他干嘛还找错吗？ 11:34谁抗拒他的旨意？“难道这不是很反对，这是今天呼吁？ 在使徒的问题在这里力量似乎是这样的：既然一切都取决于上帝的意志，这是不可逆转的，因为这上帝的意志，根据他可以做任何事情都是主权，因为他能怜悯人，他的遗嘱有怜悯，可以拒绝怜悯和施加惩罚的人，他选择这样做，为什么不将所有有怜悯，使他们听话，从而把故障找到法庭呢？ 现在，应该特别指出，使徒不否认地面上反对承担。 他没有说上帝没有找到故障。 他也没有说，男人可以抗拒他的意志。 此外，他没有解释说，走在反对：你完全捉错用了我的意思，我说“人，他的遗嘱，他待人和善，与人，他的遗嘱，他严厉对待。”但他说，“'第一，这是一个反对你无权作出';然后，'这是一个反对你没有理由让'“（见布朗博士）。 反对意见是完全不可接受的，因为它是对上帝回答。 有人抱怨，争论，上帝做了什么！
滚装9:19（＃）“9:19这样，你对我，为什么呢，凸现他还指责？ 11:34谁抗拒他的旨意呢？“使徒在这里的语言，把反对者的嘴把如此平原，并指出，这个误解应该是不可能的。 他干嘛还找错吗？ 现在，读者，可这些话意味着什么？ 制定你自己的回答，然后才考虑我们的。 能否在使徒的问题是任何力量比这其他：如果这是真的，上帝有“慈悲”的人，他的遗嘱，并“变硬”的人，他的遗嘱，然后变成什么样的人的责任？ 在这种情况下，男人只不过是傀儡好，如果这是真的话，这是不公平的上帝“找到他的无助的动物的错”。 标记词“然后”，祢对我说，然后，他州（假）推论或结论，而反对者从什么使徒一直在说的功力。 和马克，我的读者，很容易看到的使徒，他制订了非常反对将这一学说提出，除非我们已经写在本书挑起，至少在某些（所有的都没有神的恩典制服肉体的头脑）的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.
（＃）滚装船9:21-23岂不是在泥里功率相同的块状，使一艘你们的荣誉，又拿一块作成卑贱？ 如果上帝，愿意以他的愤怒，使他的权能，多忍耐愤怒的船只装有杀伤性经历：那他可能表达对船只的怜悯，这是他每每他丰盛的荣耀准备你们的荣耀。 在这些经文使徒提供了一条全面和最终答复提出英寸）（＃滚装9时19分首先反对，他问：“在粘土上岂不是陶工的权力？”等，这是必须指出的字眼翻译的“权力”是在从呈现“权力”在一个不同的一个希腊（＃），其中滚装船9时22分，只能表明他的可能，但在这里，9时21）（＃滚装船必须发言的权力指的是造物主的主权权利或特权，这是这样，从希腊字，同样是受雇于＃并由1时12 - “和许多接待他，其实他们似乎给他的权力，成为神的儿女“，其中，众所周知，是指权利或特权，成为神的儿子。 房车采用“权利”无论是在＃＃荷兰Joh 1:12及滚装9点21分。
9时21分）（＃滚装船“莫非不是在同一肿块泥里的权力，使一艘你们的荣誉，又拿一块作成卑贱？说，”哈利波特“在这里”是上帝自己是从以前的一些诗句，其中使徒问“谁是那repliest对上帝？”，然后，在这个数字上，他将要使用的条件，继续下去，“要形成的东西告诉他，它形成的”等一些有谁将抢劫辩称，虽然某些人的陶艺家，使船只为目的的比别人少光荣，但其使用武力这些话，他们是为了填补一些有用的地方。 但使徒在这里不说，“在同一一次性粘土窑匠岂不是权力，使一艘你们光荣的使用，另一个不太体面的使用”，但他讲的一些“容器”正“你们解散的荣耀。“当然这是事实，上帝的智慧将尚未完全平反，作为作为遗弃的破坏将推动多，他的荣耀，以何种方式在未来诗句告诉我们。
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.
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.
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 of God
