第5章-的主權，上帝在非難。（胡粉紅色）
“看哪，因此，善良和嚴重程度的上帝。”（＃）滾裝船 11:22
在最後一章時，治療的主權，上帝的父親在拯救，我們研究的7個通道，作為代表他作出選擇的兒童之間的男性，predestinating一定的應該符合他的兒子的形象。 周到的讀者自然會問，什麼樣的人誰不是“祝聖的永恆的生命嗎？”答案通常是返回到這個問題，甚至那些誰自稱相信聖經的教導關於神的主權，是上帝通過由非選舉，使他們獨自走自己的路，並最終投下他們進入湖消防，因為他們拒絕他的方式，並拒絕提供他的救世主。 但是，這只是一部分的事實，而其他部分看起來也是最反感的肉體心態，或者是忽視或否認。
鑑於可怕嚴肅的主題在這裡擺在我們面前，鑑於這一事實，今天幾乎所有的，甚至那些誰自稱是加爾文教派，拒絕和否定這一學說，並鑑於這一事實，這是其中一個點在我們的書是提高計算最具爭議，我們認為延長調查這方面的問題上帝的真理是要求。 這個分支的主題上帝的主權是深刻的神秘讓我們自由，然而，這是我們應該沒有理由拒絕它。 麻煩的是，現在有這麼多誰得到的證詞神只有這樣，就可以圓滿解釋所有的原因和理由，他的行為，這意味著他們將接受什麼，但它可以測量小秤自己的能力有限。
說明它在baldest形成現在的重點要考慮的是，有一定的上帝注定要詛咒？ 儘管很多人都將永遠被詛咒是明確的，從經文，每個人會根據他的判斷作品和收穫，因為他已經播下，並因此而他的“詛咒是正義的，”（3:8）＃滾裝同樣肯定的是，並認為上帝頒布法令，非選舉的過程中，他們應該選擇跟隨我們現在進行證明。
從已擺在我們面前上一章關於選舉的一些得救，這將不可避免地跟隨，即使聖經一直保持沉默，那麼，必須有一個排斥他人。 每一個選擇，顯然與必然意味著拒絕，因為那裡沒有離開那裡，可沒有別的選擇。 如果有一些人已經選出，要救神，2:3）（＃帖必須有其他人誰不當選得救。 如果有一些父親給基督，並由 6:37）（＃必須有其他人，他沒有給你們的基督。 如果有他們的名字寫在羔羊生命之書，21:27）（＃再要有別人寫他們的名字是不存在。 這是這種情況，我們應充分證明如下。
現在大家都會承認，從基礎的世界上帝一定會 foreknew和預見到誰，誰也不會接受基督作為他們的救主，所以在給予福利和生育那些他知道會拒絕基督，他一定在他們那裡詛咒。 所有這一切可以說這是在回答，沒有，而這些神也預知的基督會拒絕，但他並沒有法令，他們應該的。 但是，這是一個乞討的，真正的問題一個問題。 上帝有一個明確的原因，他創造的男子，一個特定的目的為何，他創造了這個和個人，鑑於他的永恆的目標生物，他旨意，這不是一個應該花永遠在天堂，或者是一個應該花永恆在湖的火災。 如果當時他預見到，在創造一個人，這個人一定會鄙視和拒絕的救世主，但他事先知道這一點，卻帶給該人進入的存在，那麼很明顯，他設計並受戒，該人應該永遠失去了。 再次，信心是上帝的禮物，並給它的目的只是一些，涉及的目的，不給他人。 沒有信仰，沒有得救，“他說，不信必被定罪”，因此，如果有一些亞當的後裔誰不給他旨意的信仰，它必須是，因為他受戒，他們應該被定罪。
不僅是有沒有擺脫這些結論，但歷史證明他們。 前神的化身，差不多兩千年來，人類的絕大多數人處於赤貧之中，即使是外部手段的寬限期，而主張沒有說教的神的話語並沒有書面的啟示他的意志。 對於許多長期世紀以色列是唯一國家，以任何人的神賜予他自己特殊的發現，“誰在過去的時代所遭受的所有國家在走自己的方式”（＃徒14:16） - “你只（以色列）我知道所有的家屬在地上。“（＃）上午3:2因此，所有其他國家被剝奪了宣揚神的話，他們是陌生人的信念來到從而。 （＃滾裝船 10:17）這些國家不僅是無知的上帝，而是為了取悅他的方式，在真正地接受他，和運輸工具到達永恆的享受自己。
現在，如果上帝意志的救贖，他會不會賜予他們的手段拯救？ 難道他不是已經給了他們一切必要為此目的？ 但它是一個不可否認的事實問題，他沒有。 如果，那麼，神能，始終與他的正義，憐憫，仁慈，否定了一些手段的寬限期，並關閉他們在總黑暗和不信（因為他們的祖先的罪孽，一代），為什麼要它被視為不符合他的完善，以排除一些人，許多人，從自己的寬限期，從永恆的生命，這是連接呢？ 看到他是上帝和主權的最終處置者都向領導的手段和手段，導致這一目標？
即將到我們自己的一天，以及那些在我們自己的國家留下了幾乎 unnumberable人潮unevangelized異教徒，這不是明顯，有許多生活在那裡的土地是宣揚福音，土地是充滿了教堂，誰死陌生人對上帝和他的聖潔？ 誠然，手段的寬限期已接近他們的手，但其中許多人卻不知道。 數千人出生在家庭教他們從嬰兒把所有基督徒的偽善和傳教士為拱humbugs。 其他人，是從搖籃指示在羅馬天主教，並把培訓作為致命的異端福音基督教和聖經作為一本書非常危險的，他們閱讀。 其他，飼養在“基督教科學”的家庭，沒有更多的了解真實的基督福音的unevangelized比異教徒。 絕大多數這些死於完全無知的和平之路。 現在，我們沒有義務來結束，這是不是神的旨意傳達給他們的恩典？ 如果他的意願發展的話，他會不會真的向他們傳達他的恩典？ 如果，那麼，它是上帝的意志，在時間，拒絕給他們的恩典，它必須是他會從所有永恆的，因為他的意志，正如他自己，同樣的昨天，今天和永遠。 請不要忘記，上帝的providences的表現，不過他的法令：什麼上帝不只是在時間的永恆他旨意，他自己將作為單獨導致他所有的行動和作品。 因此，從他的離開有些人其實在最後 impenitency和不信，我們穩妥地蒐集資料，是他永恆的決心如此做;，因此，他reprobated一些以前在世界的基礎。
在西敏寺自白有人說，“上帝從所有永恆做的最明智的和神聖的律師，他自己的意志，自由，不變地注定任何涉及到過去的。”已故的格蘭特先生的防火牆，一個最認真和謹慎的學生，作家評論說這些話：“這是完美，神真實的，那神命定為自己的榮耀任何涉及到過去的。”現在，如果這些陳述是真實的，不是教條的非難設立的呢？ 那麼，人類的歷史，是一件事不來度過每一天？ 什麼，但是，男人和婦女死亡，通過了這個世界成為一個沒有希望的永恆，這是一個漫長的痛苦和疾苦。 如果當時上帝注定任何涉及到通過話，他必須有廣大的頒布法令，人類應該通過了這個世界永遠未保存在遭受火災的湖。 一般承認的前提下，是不是具體的結論是不可避免的？
在回答前幾段的讀者可能會說，這一切僅僅是推理，邏輯毫無疑問，但還只是推論。 好吧，我們現在指出，除了上述結論有許多段落在聖經，這是最清晰和明確的在他們的教學在這個莊嚴的主題;通道，這是太簡單被人誤解，過於強烈的要迴避。 在驚嘆的是，這麼多好人都否認了其無可否認的肯定。
“約書亞使戰爭長期與所有這些國王。 沒有一個城市，使和平與孩子們的以色列，保存希未人的居民基遍：他們參加了所有其他的戰鬥。 因為這是主的硬心腸，他們應該對以色列在戰場上，他可能完全摧毀他們，而他們可能沒有贊成，但他可能會破壞他們，正如耶和華吩咐摩西的。“（ ＃何11:18-20）有什麼能比這淺顯？ 這裡是一個大數目的迦南人的心主硬化，正是他自己旨意，以徹底摧毀，向他表明“不支持”。 想當然地認為他們是邪惡的，不道德的，偶像崇拜，是比他們更差不道德的，崇拜偶像的食人族南海群島（和許多其他地方），向誰上帝給了福音，通過約翰 G佩頓！ 無疑不是。 那麼為什麼不耶和華命令以色列的迦南人教他有關的法律和指導他們的犧牲，以真正的上帝？ 很明顯，因為他已經明顯出來銷毀，如果是這樣，從所有永恆。
“上帝救了自己所有的東西：是的，即使是邪惡的邪惡的一天..”）（＃镨16:4，耶和華作出一切，也許每一個讀者的這本書將允許：他提出的所有自己也不是如此廣泛地相信。 上帝造的，不是為我們自己的緣故，而是為自己，不為我們自己的幸福，但他的榮耀，是不過，在聖經中一再申明，再4:11。 不過＃镨16:4甚至更進一步：它明確宣布，耶和華造邪惡的邪惡的一天：這是他的設計是在給他們。 但是，為什麼？ 不＃滾裝 9:17告訴我們：“因為經上說對法老，即使為此我要提出你了，我可能會顯示在你我的力量，而我的名字可能被宣布傳遍天下！”神使惡人，在結束時，他可能會表現出“自己的權力”，表明它通過展示什麼是容易的事，是他征服矮胖叛亂，推翻他的最強大的敵人。
“然後將我對他們宣稱，我從來不知道你：離開我，你們的工作的罪孽。”（＃）山7:23在前面的章節已經表明，將“知道”和“預知”當應用到上帝在聖經，有參考不僅僅是他的先見之明（即他事前裸知識），但據他所知的讚許。 當神說以色列，“只要我知道的所有家庭的地球，”（3:2）＃很顯然，他的意思，“你只有我有有利方面。”當我們閱讀＃滾裝 11:2神沒有拋棄他的人（以色列）他foreknew，“這是明顯的標誌是什麼，”上帝還沒有最終被他拒絕了，人們選擇的對象作為他的愛，比照。 ＃德7:7,8。 以同樣的方式（而且是唯一可行的方法）是我們了解＃山7:23。 在當天的判決主會說，你們許多人來說，“我從來不知道你。”注意，它比簡單的“我知道你不是。”他的莊嚴宣言將是，“我從來不知道你”，你從來都不是我認同的對象。 與此相反，“我知道（愛）我的羊，我知道（愛）我的。”）（＃並由 10:14的“羊”，他選出的“少數”，他是“知道，”但墮落的，非選舉，“多”，他不知道，不，不，甚至在世界的基礎，他並不知道他們，他“從來沒有”認識他們！
在＃滾裝船 9:1-33學說上帝的主權都在其應用，並遺棄的選舉是在長度對待。 詳細闡述這一重要章節都將超出我們目前的範圍，所有的文章，是我們可以進一步討論有關它的哪些部分最清楚後，負有方面的課題，我們正在考慮。
＃滾裝 9:17他說：“經上說對法老，即使是同樣的目的，我要提出你了，我可能會顯示我的，權力在你，我的名字可能被宣布傳遍天下。”這句話是指我們回＃和＃滾裝船滾裝船 9:13 9:14。 在＃滾裝 9:13神愛雅各和以掃他的仇恨被宣布。 在＃滾裝 9:14有人問：“有沒有不義的神嗎？”，並在這裡＃滾裝 9:17使徒繼續他的答复異議。 我們不能做得更好現在比引述卡爾文的評論，這詩句。 “這裡有兩件事情要考慮，法老的宿命破壞，這就是被稱為過去，但隱藏的律師的上帝，和然後，設計了這一點，這是使已知的名稱神。 正如許多口譯員，爭取修改此通道，妨礙它，我們必須先觀察，該單詞“我將你興起來，”還是激起了，在希伯來文是：“我已任命”，其中顯示，上帝，設計，證明 contumacy法老不會阻止他向他的人民，不僅肯定了他的憤怒他已預見到了，他準備了約束手段，但也因此，他計劃地祝聖它乃至為此，-，他可能表現出更加輝煌的證明自己的權力。“這將是觀察到卡爾文為部隊提供了希伯來文，其中保羅呈現”為此我要提出你了，“ - “我已任命”。 由於這是文字上的理論和論據的詩句變成我們將進一步指出，在作出這一報價從＃前9:16使徒顯著偏離七十，然後在共同的版本使用，並從他最常見的報價和替代品的條款，第一是給予了七十：不是“在這個帳戶你既保留下來，”他給他說：“這個月底，我將你興起來”！
但我們現在必須考慮更詳細的案件法老其中總結了具體的例子這麼大的爭議和他的製作人之間。 他說：“現在我會伸出我的手，我可以擊打你和你的百姓與瘟疫，你也被切斷從地上。 在非常契約為這項事業有我將你興起來，為顯示在你我的力量，並認為我的名字可能被宣布傳遍天下。“（＃）前9:15,16這些話後，我們提出以下評論：
首先，我們知道從＃前14:1-15:27法老被切斷，他被切斷的神，他被切斷在中間，他非常邪惡，他被切斷並非由疾病或通過這些事件的軟弱到老，也不是什麼人長期意外，但立即切斷上帝之手的判斷。
二是親愛的，上帝興起法老為這個最終以“打斷了他，”這在語言的新約聖經的意思是“毀滅。”上帝做任何事情從來沒有以前的設計。 給他福利，維護他通過嬰兒和兒童，在提高他的寶座埃及，上帝有一個結束的看法。 這種是上帝的宗旨是明確的從他的話對摩西之前，他就下到埃及，要求對法老說耶和華的人應該被允許進入一個三天的路程到曠野崇拜他，“耶和華對摩西說： ，當你行走返回到埃及，看到你做所有這些奇蹟法老面前，我已經把你的手：我會變硬，但他的心，他不得讓百姓去。“（＃前4:21 ）但是，不但如此，上帝的設計和目的是長期在此之前宣布。 四百年以前神對亞伯拉罕說，“認識你的擔保人的種子應當是一個陌生人在一個不是自己的土地上，並應為他們服務，他們必折磨他們四百年，並且該國，其中他們的任期，我將法官“。 （＃）葛15:13,14從這些話很明顯（一個國家和國王被看作是一個在舊約），上帝的目的是成立不久，他正在給法老。
第三，審查上帝的交往與法老清楚地表明，埃及的國王確實是一個“船隻的憤怒裝有毀滅。”放置在埃及的寶座，與韁繩政府在他手中，他就坐在掌管國家的佔領第一個躋身世界人民的。 有沒有其他君主地球上能夠控制或支配法老。 對於這樣一個頭暈目眩的高度，神提出這個惡棍，而這樣的過程是一個自然和必要的步驟，他準備為他的最終命運，因為它是一個神聖的格言說：“驕傲前頭破壞和傲慢的精神，跌倒之前。”此外，和這是非常重要的注意和高度顯著，上帝免去法老的限制是一個向外計算，作為對他的支票。 法老的不給予無限權力的國王是他最重要的是法律環境的影響和控制。 但是，除了這一點，上帝從他面前拆除摩西和王國。 如果摩西，誰不僅精通所有的智慧，埃及人，但也已被飼養在法老的家庭，一直受到留在鄰近的寶座，但毫無疑問，但他的榜樣和影響力已經強大檢查後，國王的邪惡和暴政。 這雖然不是唯一的原因，原因之一顯然是上帝差遣摩西到米甸，因為這是在他離港期間，埃及的不人道王框他最殘酷的法令。 上帝設計的，通過消除這種限制，給予充分的機會法老填補了充分衡量自己的罪，和自己成熟，但他完全當之無愧注定毀滅。
第四，神“硬化”他的心，正如他宣布，他會的。 （＃）前16:21這是完全符合聖經的聲明，說：“準備在人的心臟，並回答了舌頭，從主”;）（＃镨16:1“的王的心，在手的主，為江河湖海，他好像蒙著臉它無論往何處去，他將“。 21:1）（＃镨像所有其他的國王，法老的心在手的耶和華，神既有權利和權力，能夠把它無論往何處，他感到高興。 它高興他把它反對一切良好。 上帝決心妨礙法老從批准他的請求，通過摩西讓以色列人去，直到他已經做好充分準備為他的最後推翻他，並沒有因為缺乏這將完全適合他，他的心神硬化。
最後，這是值得認真考慮如何注意332神在他的交往與法老已經完全證明。 最引人注目的是，我們發現有法老的自己的證詞，贊成和反對他自己的上帝！ 在＃前9:15,16我們學習如何上帝告訴法老出於何種目的，他提出了他，並在＃前9:27告訴我們法老說，“我有罪了這個時間：耶和華是公義的，我和我的人是邪惡的。“馬克，這是由法老說，上帝知道後，他提出了他在以”打斷了他，“嚴重的判斷後，他被派往他，之後他自己的硬心臟。 這個時候，法老是相當成熟的判斷，並充分準備，以決定是否上帝已經受傷他，或者他是否曾試圖傷害神，他完全承認，他“有罪”，上帝是“正義的。”又;我們有證人的摩西誰是充分認識了上帝的行為對法老。 他聽到一開始什麼是上帝的設計方面與法老，他曾親眼目睹神的交易與他，他已注意到他的“長期默許”朝著這個容器的憤怒裝有毀滅，最後他看見他切斷神聖的判決在紅海。 當時摩西留下深刻的印象如何？ 他是否提高哭的不公正？ 他是否敢負責神不正？ 遠非如此。 相反，他說：“誰像你，主啊，在神？ 誰是你喜歡的，光榮的，在聖潔，恐懼，讚美，做奇事！“（＃）前15:11
摩西是一名懷恨在心的精神感動，因為他看到了以色列的主要敵人“切斷”，由紅海水域？ 當然不會。 但是，為了永遠消除所有疑問後，這個分數，但它仍然要指出的是聖人如何在天堂，在他們見證了上帝的判斷疼痛，參加演唱的“歌神的僕人摩西，和歌蘭姆說，偉大而奇妙的是你的作品，主神全能者，公正和真實的是你的方式，你國王聯合國。“15:3（＃）這裡再然後是高潮，全面和最終平反上帝的交往與法老。 聖徒在天上一起唱這首歌的摩西，其中著名的神的僕人，耶和華的讚美推翻法老和他的東道主，宣布在這樣做是不是不義的神，但公正和真實。 我們必須相信，因此，所有的法官沒有正確地創建和銷毀在這個容器的震怒，法老。
案件法老確立的原則，並說明了理論的非難。 如果上帝真的reprobated法老，我們可以理直氣壯地得出結論，他棄絕的所有其他人，他並沒有注定要符合他的兒子的形象。 這一推斷，使徒保羅顯然吸引了來自法老的命運，因為在＃滾裝 9:1-33，後指的是神的目的，提高了法老，他繼續說，“因此”。 案件法老的介紹，證明這一學說的非難作為對口的原則選舉。
最後，我們要說，在形成法老神既不公正，也不顯示不公正，但只有他裸露的主權。 由於波特是主權形成的船隻，所以上帝是主權形成的道德代理人。
＃滾裝 9:18“所以祂所憐憫他的人，他會憐憫，他將他和誰剛硬”。 在“因此”宣布的一般結論，所有的使徒提請他說，在過去三個詩句否認上帝是不義的熱愛雅各和以掃恨，特別是適用的原則體現在上帝的交往與法老。 它的痕跡都回主權意志的創造者。 他熱愛和憎恨另外，他對一些練習憐憫和變硬等，沒有提及任何挽救他自己的主權意志。
這是最劑心靈的肉體在上述詩句，是指以硬化，“人，他將他剛硬”，而且它只是在這裡有這麼多評論家和解釋者有摻假真相。 最常見的看法是，使徒是講什麼比司法硬化，也就是說，一個被上帝拋棄，因為這些科目他最初拒絕了他的不滿，真理和拋棄他。 這些誰爭奪這一解釋呼籲這些經文為＃滾裝 1:19 - 26 -上帝給了他們，這是（見背景）誰知道那些尚未神卻不當作神榮耀他。 1:21）（＃滾裝上訴也作出＃帖後 2:10-12。 但是，必須指出，單詞“硬”不發生在這些通道之一。 但進一步，我們提出一點＃滾裝 9:18沒有提及任何司法“硬化。”使徒是不是有講那些誰已經把他們的背上神的真理，而是，他正在處理與上帝的主權，上帝的主權不僅體現在展示憐憫的人，他的意志，而且在硬化的人，他為所欲為。 確切的詞是“被他”而不是“所有誰也拒絕了他的真理” - “他剛硬”，這樣，未來後，立即提到法老，明確修復的意義。 案件法老是平原的話，雖然他的人掩蓋已盡力掩蓋真相。
滾裝 9:18（＃）“所以祂所憐憫他的人，他會憐憫，他將他和誰剛硬”。 這肯定神的主權“硬化”的罪人的心，在對比從司法硬化，並不孤單。 標記語言＃並由 12:37-40“但儘管他做了這麼多的奇蹟面前，但他們不信他：即所謂的先知以賽亞可能實現，這是他說話的，主，誰相信上帝我們的報告？ 上帝給誰的手臂被發現的主？ 因此，他們不能相信（為什麼？），因為以賽亞又說，他祂所蒙蔽他們的眼睛，硬了心（為什麼呢，因為他們拒絕相信基督？這是民間信仰，但馬克的回答聖經）表示，他們應該用自己的眼睛看不到，也不了解他們的heart，和被轉換，我應該醫治他們。“現在，讀者，它只是一個問題，至於是否你會不相信什麼上帝已經顯示在他字。 這不是一個問題搜索或長期深入的研究，而是一個天真的精神，是必要的，以便了解這一學說。
{#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!
滾裝 9:19（＃）“9:19這樣，你對我，為什麼呢，凸現他還指責？ 11:34誰抗拒他的旨意？“語言的使徒在這裡放入嘴裡的反對者是如此樸素，並指出，這個誤解應該是不可能的。 他幹嘛還找錯嗎？ 現在，讀者，可這些話意味著什麼？ 制定你自己的回答，然後才考慮我們的。 該部隊可以在使徒的問題是任何其他比這：如果這是真的，上帝有“憐憫”誰他的遺囑，也“變硬”人，他的遺囑，那麼成為人的責任？ 在這種情況下男性莫過於木偶，如果這是真的話，這是不公平的上帝“吹毛求疵”，他無助的動物。 標記詞“然後”，祢對我說，然後，他州（假）推論或結論，而反對者吸引了來自什麼使徒一直在說。 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.
（＃）滾裝船 9:21-23陶工豈不是權力在粘土，同一筆，使一艘你們的榮譽，又拿一塊作成卑賤？ 如果上帝，願意顯示他的憤怒，使他的權能，忍受了多少忍耐的船隻裝有破壞的憤怒：這可能使他知道他榮耀的豐富，對船隻的憐憫，這是他每每準備你們的榮耀。 在這些經文使徒提供了一條全面和最終答复提出的異議英寸滾裝 9:19（＃）首先，他問：“豈不是對權力的陶工粘土？”等，這是必須指出的字眼翻譯的“權力”是一個不同的，在希臘的一個呈現“權力”在9:22）（＃滾裝那裡只能表明他的可能，但在這裡，（＃）滾裝船 9:21的發言的權力，必須指的是造物主的主權權利或特權，這是這樣，出現的事實，同樣的希臘字是受僱於＃荷蘭 Joh 1:12 - “和許多接待他，他就賜他們的權力，成為神的兒子們“，其中，眾所周知，是指權利或特權，成為神的兒子們。 房車採用“權利”無論是在1:12和＃＃並由滾裝 9:21。
滾裝 9:21（＃）“豈不是對權力的陶工粘土同一硬塊，使一艘你們的榮譽，又拿一塊作成卑賤？”說，“哈利波特”在這裡是神自己是從以前的一些詩句，其中使徒問“誰是那repliest對上帝？”，然後，發言的條款，這個數字將要使用他，繼續下去，“要形成的東西告訴他，它形成的”等一些有誰這些話會搶了他們的力量辯稱，雖然人類的陶工使得某些船隻被用於其他目的不是那麼值得尊敬，然而，他們的目的是填補了一些有用的地方。 但使徒在這裡不說“豈不是對權力的陶工粘土同一硬塊，使你們一艘光榮使用，另一個不太體面的使用”，但他講的一些“容器”正“你們解散的榮譽。“這是真的，當然，上帝的智慧將尚未完全平反，在盡可能的毀滅，墮落的將促進他的榮耀，以何種方式在未來詩句告訴我們。
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.
雖然＃滾裝船 9:1-33包含設置提出充分的學說非難，還有其他通道，是指它，一個或兩個以上的，我們現在簡單的通知： -
”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?”
以書面形式向聖徒，使徒在薩洛尼卡宣布，“為神沒有委託我們憤怒，但我們得到救贖主耶穌基督。”（＃帖前5:9）現在肯定是專利的任何公正的態度，這說明是毫無意義，如果上帝不是“任命”任何發怒。 如果說上帝“祂所沒有委託我們憤怒”，明確暗示，有一些人，他已任命“發怒”的，如果不是，心中有這麼多信奉基督信徒是如此的偏見所蒙蔽，他們不能失敗要清楚地看到這一點。
“石頭的絆腳石，和岩石或罪行，甚至他們誰絆倒在Word中，被不聽話，也照著他們獲委任”。 （）＃彼前2:8的犯難，顯然分回絆腳石在Word中，和他們的抗命。 在這裡，然後，上帝明確肯定，有一些誰被“委任”（它是在同希臘字＃帖前5:9）你們不服從。 我們的業務是沒有道理它，而是屈從於聖經。 我們的首要職責是不理解，但相信什麼上帝說。
”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.
該原則的非難是一個“硬說”對肉體的心靈是很容易的承認，但這樣的“難”比永恆的懲罰？ 這顯然是在聖經中教導我們必須設法證明，這是不是我們挑選的真理揭示神的話語。 讓那些誰就有可能收到這些學說推薦自己的判斷，誰拒絕那些他們不能完全理解，還記得那些尖銳的話，我們的主的，“啊，傻瓜，和緩慢的心，相信所有的先知發言：“）（＃路24:25傻瓜，因為慢心;慢心，而不是枯燥的頭！
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”.
喬治 Whitefield的，那健壯的18世紀，上帝在使用這麼多的祝福，說：“毫無疑問，這個學說的選舉和reprobation必須站在一起，或屬於 ...我坦率地承認，我相信這個學說的非難，上帝打算給予寬限期，以節能，通過耶穌基督，只在某一個數目;而其餘的人類，在秋季後的亞當，上帝是公正的，繼續留在罪，將最終受害的是它永恆的死亡適當的工資“。
“合身毀滅。”（）＃滾裝 9:22這句話後，宣布承認的兩種解釋，霍奇博士，也許是最有名和最廣泛的閱讀評論員：羅馬，說，“其他的解釋假定所指的是神和希臘字的'裝'有其充分過去分詞力量，準備（神）的破壞。“正因如此，霍奇博士說，”不僅是通過多數人的奧古斯丁，路德會，但也有很多。“
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
