Chapter V: Section I: The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its Preparation (1)

(_a_) In this Section we treat of Election and Calling; Section Second being devoted to the Application of Christ’s Redemption in its Actual Beginning,—namely, in Union with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion, and Justification; while Section Third has for its subject the Application of Christ’s Redemption in its Continuation,—namely, in Sanctification and Perseverance.

The arrangement of topics, in the treatment of the reconciliation
of man to God, is taken from Julius Müller, Proof‐texts, 35.
“Revelation _to_ us aims to bring about revelation _in_ us. In any
being absolutely perfect, God’s intercourse with us by _faculty_,
and by direct _teaching_, would absolutely coalesce, and the
former be just as much God’s voice as the latter” (Hutton,
Essays).

(_b_) In treating Election and Calling as applications of Christ’s redemption, we imply that they are, in God’s decree, logically subsequent to that redemption. In this we hold the Sublapsarian view, as distinguished from the Supralapsarianism of Beza and other hyper‐ Calvinists, which regarded the decree of individual salvation as preceding, in the order of thought, the decree to permit the Fall. In this latter scheme, the order of decrees is as follows: 1. the decree to save certain, and to reprobate others; 2. the decree to create both those who are to be saved and those who are to be reprobated; 3. the decree to permit both the former and the latter to fall; 4. the decree to provide salvation only for the former, that is, for the elect.

Richards, Theology, 302‐307, shows that Calvin, while in his early
work, the Institutes, he avoided definite statements of his
position with regard to the extent of the atonement, yet in his
latter works, the Commentaries, acceded to the theory of universal
atonement. Supralapsarianism is therefore hyper‐Calvinistic,
rather than Calvinistic. Sublapsarianism was adopted by the Synod
of Dort (1618, 1619). By Supralapsarian is meant that form of
doctrine which holds the decree of individual salvation as
preceding the decree to permit the Fall; Sublapsarian designates
that form of doctrine which holds that the decree of individual
salvation is subsequent to the decree to permit the Fall.

The progress in Calvin’s thought may be seen by comparing some of
his earlier with his later utterances. Institutes, 2:23:5—“I say,
with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, as he certainly
foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so
willed.” But even then in the Institutes, 3:23:8, he affirms that
“the perdition of the wicked depends upon the divine
predestination in such a manner that the cause and matter of it
are found in themselves. Man falls by the appointment of divine
providence, but he falls by his own fault.” God’s blinding,
hardening, turning the sinner he describes as the consequence of
the divine _desertion_, not the divine _causation_. The relation
of God to the origin of sin is not efficient, but permissive. In
later days Calvin wrote in his Commentary on _1 John 2:2_—“_he is
the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for
the whole world_”—as follows: “Christ suffered for the sins of the
whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men
without distinction, his blood being shed not for a part of the
world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the
world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he holds
out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception
he summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than
the door unto hope.”

Although other passages, such as Institutes, 3:21:5, and 3:23:1,
assert the harsher view, we must give Calvin credit for modifying
his doctrine with maturer reflection and advancing years. Much
that is called Calvinism would have been repudiated by Calvin
himself even at the beginning of his career, and is really the
exaggeration of his teaching by more scholastic and less religious
successors. Renan calls Calvin “the most Christian man of his
generation.” Dorner describes him as “equally great in intellect
and character, lovely in social life, full of tender sympathy and
faithfulness to his friends, yielding and forgiving toward
personal offences.” The device upon his seal is a flaming heart
from which is stretched forth a helping hand.

Calvin’s share in the burning of Servetus must be explained by his
mistaken zeal for God’s truth and by the universal belief of his
time that this truth was to be defended by the civil power. The
following is the inscription on the expiatory monument which
European Calvinists raised to Servetus: “On October 27, 1553, died
at the stake at Champel, Michael Servetus, of Villeneuve d’Aragon,
born September 29, 1511. Reverent and grateful sons of Calvin, our
great Reformer, but condemning an error which was that of his age,
and steadfastly adhering to liberty of conscience according to the
true principles of the Reformation and of the gospel, we have
erected this expiatory monument, on the 27th of October, 1903.”

John DeWitt, in Princeton Theol. Rev., Jan. 1904:95—“Take John
Calvin. That fruitful conception—more fruitful in church and state
than any other conception which has held the English speaking
world—of the absolute and universal sovereignty of the holy God,
as a revolt from the conception then prevailing of the sovereignty
of the human head of an earthly church, was historically the
mediator and instaurator of his spiritual career.” On Calvin’s
theological position, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:409, note.

(_c_) But the Scriptures teach that men as sinners, and not men irrespective of their sins, are the objects of God’s saving grace in Christ (John 15:9; Rom. 11:5, 7; Eph. 1:4‐6; 1 Pet. 1:2). Condemnation, moreover, is an act, not of sovereignty, but of justice, and is grounded in the guilt of the condemned (Rom. 2:6‐11; 2 Thess. 1:5‐10). The true order of the decrees is therefore as follows: 1. the decree to create; 2. the decree to permit the Fall; 3. the decree to provide a salvation in Christ sufficient for the needs of all; 4. the decree to secure the actual acceptance of this salvation on the part of some,—or, in other words, the decree of Election.

That saving grace presupposes the Fall, and that men as sinners
are the objects of it, appears from _John 15:19_—“_If ye were of
the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of
the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world
hateth you_”; _Rom. 11:5‐7_—“_Even so then at this present time
also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. But if
it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more
grace. What then? That which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained
not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened._”
_Eph. 1:4‐6_—“_even as he chose us in him before the foundation of
the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him
in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through
Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his
will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely
bestowed on us in the Beloved_”; _1 Pet. 1:2_—elect, “_according
to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the
Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus: Grace
to you and peace be multiplied._”

That condemnation is not an act of sovereignty, but of justice,
appears from _Rom. 2:6‐9_—“_who will render to every man according
to his works ... wrath and indignation ... upon every soul of man
that worketh evil_”; _2 Thess. 1:6‐9_—“_a righteous thing with God
to recompense affliction to them that afflict you ... rendering
vengeance to them that know not God and to them that obey not the
gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer punishment._”
Particular persons are elected, not to have Christ die for them,
but to have special influences of the Spirit bestowed upon them.

(_d_) Those Sublapsarians who hold to the Anselmic view of a limited Atonement, make the decrees 3. and 4., just mentioned, exchange places,—the decree of election thus preceding the decree to provide redemption. The Scriptural reasons for preferring the order here given have been already indicated in our treatment of the extent of the Atonement (pages 771‐773).

When “3” and “4” thus change places, “3” should be made to read:
“The decree to provide in Christ a salvation sufficient for the
elect”; and “4” should read: “The decree that a certain number
should be saved,—or, in other words, the decree of Election.”
Sublapsarianism of the first sort may be found in Turretin, loc.
4, quæs. 9; Cunningham, Hist. Theol., 416‐439. A. J. F. Behrends:
“The divine decree is our last word in theology, not our first
word. It represents the _terminus ad quem_, not the _terminus a
quo_. Whatever comes about in the exercise of human freedom and of
divine grace—that God has decreed.” Yet we must grant that
Calvinism needs to be supplemented by a more express statement of
God’s love for the world. Herrick Johnson: “Across the Westminster
Confession could justly be written: ‘The Gospel for the elect
only.’ That Confession was written under the absolute dominion of
one idea, the doctrine of predestination. It does not contain one
of three truths: God’s love for a lost world; Christ’s compassion
for a lost world, and the gospel universal for a lost world.”

I. Election.

Election is that eternal act of God, by which in his sovereign pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, he chooses certain out of the number of sinful men to be the recipients of the special grace of his Spirit, and so to be made voluntary partakers of Christ’s salvation.

1. Proof of the Doctrine of Election.

A. From Scripture.

We here adopt the words of Dr. Hovey: “The Scriptures forbid us to find the reasons for election in the moral action of man before the new birth, and refer us merely to the sovereign will and mercy of God; that is, they teach the doctrine of personal election.” Before advancing to the proof of the doctrine itself, we may claim Scriptural warrant for three preliminary statements (which we also quote from Dr. Hovey), namely:

First, that “God has a sovereign right to bestow more grace upon one subject than upon another,—grace being unmerited favor to sinners.”

_Mat. 20:12‐15_—“_These last have spent but one hour, and thou
hast made them equal unto us.... Friend, I do thee no wrong.... Is
it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?_” _Rom.
9:20, 21_—“_Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why
didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the
clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and
another unto dishonor?_”

Secondly, that “God has been pleased to exercise this right in dealing with men.”

_Ps. 147:20_—“_He hath not dealt so with any nation; And as for
his ordinances, they have not known them_”. _Rom. 3:1, 2_—“_What
advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of
circumcision? Much every way: first of all, that they were
intrusted with the oracles of God_”; _John 15:16_—“_Ye did not
choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go
and bear fruit_”; _Acts 9:15_—“_he is a chosen vessel unto me, to
bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of
Israel._”

Thirdly, that “God has some other reason than that of saving as many as possible for the way in which he distributes his grace.”

n

_Mat. 11:21_—Tyre and Sidon “_would have repented,_” if they had
had the grace bestowed upon Chorazin and Bethsaida; _Rom.
9:22‐25_—“_What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his
power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath
fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches
of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto
glory?_”

The Scripture passages which directly or indirectly support the doctrine of a particular election of individual men to salvation may be arranged as follows:

(_a_) Direct statements of God’s purpose to save certain individuals:

Jesus speaks of God’s elect, as for example in _Mark 13:27_—“_then
shall he send forth the angels, and shall gather together his
elect_”; _Luke 18:7_—“_shall not God avenge his elect, that cry to
him day and night?_”

_Acts 13:48_—“_as many as were ordained_ (τεταγμένοι) _to eternal
life believed_”—here Whedon translates: “disposed unto eternal
life,” referring to κατηρτισμένα in _verse 23_, where “_fitted_” =
“fitted themselves.” The only instance, however, where τάσσω is
used in a middle sense is in _1 Cor. 16:15_—“_set themselves_”;
but there the object, ἑαυτούς, is expressed. Here we must compare
_Rom. 13:1_—“_the powers that be are ordained_ (τεταγμέναι) _of
God_”; see also _Acts 10:42_—“_this is he who is ordained_
(ὡρισμένος) _of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead._”

_Rom. 9:11‐16_—“_for the children being not yet born, neither
having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God
according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that
calleth.... I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy.... So then
it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God
that hath mercy_”; _Eph. 1:4, 5, 9, 11_—“_chose us in him before
the foundation of the world,_ [not _because_ we were, or were to
be, holy, but] _that we should be holy and without blemish before
him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through
Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his
will ... the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure
... in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained
according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the
counsel of his will_”; _Col. 3:12_—“_God’s elect_”; _2 Thess.
2:13_—“_God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth._”

(_b_) In connection with the declaration of God’s foreknowledge of these persons, or choice to make them objects of his special attention and care;

_Rom. 8:27‐30_—“_called according to his purpose. For whom he
foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his
Son_”; _1 Pet. 1:1, 2_—“_elect ... according to the foreknowledge
of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience
and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ._” On the passage in
Romans, Shedd, in his Commentary, remarks that “_foreknew,_” in
the Hebraistic use, “is more than simple prescience, and something
more also than simply ‘to fix the eye upon,’ or to ‘select.’ It is
this latter, but with the additional notion of a benignant and
kindly feeling toward the object.” In _Rom. 8:27‐30_, Paul is
emphasizing the divine sovereignty. The Christian life is
considered from the side of the divine care and ordering, and not
from the side of human choice and volition. Alexander, Theories of
the Will, 87, 88—“If Paul is here advocating indeterminism, it is
strange that in _chapter 9_ he should be at pains to answer
objections to determinism. The apostle’s protest in _chapter 9_ is
not against predestination and determination, but against the man
who regards such a theory as impugning the righteousness of God.”

That the word “_know,_” in Scripture, frequently means not merely
to “apprehend intellectually,” but to “regard with favor,” to
“make an object of care,” is evident from _Gen. 18:19_—“_I have
known him, to the end that he may command his children and his
household after him, that they may keep the way of Jehovah, to do
righteousness and justice_”; _Ex. 2:25_—“_And God saw the children
of Israel, and God took knowledge of them_”; _cf._ _verse
24_—“_God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant
with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob_”; _Ps. 1:6_—“_For
Jehovah knoweth the way of the righteous; But the way of the
wicked shall perish_”; _101:4,_ marg.—“_I will know no evil
person_”; _Hosea 13:5_—“_I did know thee in the wilderness, in the
land of great drought. According to their pasture, so were they
filled_”; _Nahum 1:7_—“_he knoweth them that take refuge in him_”;
_Amos 3:2_—“_You only have I known of all the families of the
earth_”; _Mat. 7:23_—“_then will I profess unto them, I never knew
you_”; _Rom. 7:15_—“_For that which I do I know not_”; _1 Cor.
8:3_—“_if any man loveth God, the same is known by him_”; _Gal.
4:9_—“_now that ye have come to know God, or rather, to be known
by God_”; _1 Thess. 5:12, 13_—“_we beseech you, brethren, to know
them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and
admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for
their work’s sake._” So the word “foreknow”: _Rom. 11:2_—“_God did
not cast off his people whom he foreknew_”; _1 Pet. 1:20_—Christ,
“_who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world._”

Broadus on _Mat. 7:23_—“_I never knew you_”—says; “Not in all the
passages quoted above, nor elsewhere, is there occasion for the
oft‐repeated arbitrary notion, derived from the Fathers, that
‘know’ conveys the additional idea of approve or regard. It
denotes acquaintance, with all its pleasures and advantages;
‘_knew,_’ _i. e._, as mine, as my people.”

But this last admission seems to grant what Broadus had before
denied. See Thayer, Lex. N. T., on γινώσκω: “With acc. of person,
to recognize as worthy of intimacy and love; so those whom God has
judged worthy of the blessings of the gospel are said ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ
γινώσκεσθαι (_1 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9_); negatively in the sentence
of Christ: οὐδἐποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς, ‘_I never knew you,_’ never had
any acquaintance with you.” On προγινώσκω, _Rom. 8:29_—οὒς
προέγνω, “_whom he foreknew,_” see Denney, in Expositor’s Greek
Testament, _in loco_: “Those whom he foreknew—in what sense? as
persons who would answer his love with love? This is at least
irrelevant, and alien to Paul’s general method of thought. That
salvation begins with God, and begins in eternity, are fundamental
ideas with him, which he here applies to Christians, without
raising any of the problems involved in the relation of the human
will to the divine. Yet we may be sure that προέγνω has the
pregnant sense that γινώσκω often has in Scripture, _e. g._, in
_Ps. 1:6; Amos 3:2;_ hence we may render: ‘those of whom God took
knowledge from eternity’ (_Eph. 1:4_).”

In _Rom. 8:28‐30_, quoted above, “_foreknew_” = elected—that is,
made certain individuals, in the future, the objects of his love
and care; “_foreordained_” describes God’s designation of these
same individuals to receive the special gift of salvation. In
other words, “foreknowledge” is of persons: “foreordination” is of
blessings to be bestowed upon them. Hooker, Eccl. Pol., appendix
to book v. (vol. 2:751)—“ ‘_whom he did foreknow_’ (know before as
his own, with determination to be forever merciful to them) ‘_he
also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his
Son_’—predestinated, not to opportunity of conformation, but to
conformation itself.” So, for substance, Calvin, Rückert, DeWette,
Stuart, Jowett, Vaughan. On _1 Pet. 1:1, 2,_ see Com. of Plumptre.
The Arminian interpretation of “_whom he foreknew_” (_Rom. 8:29_)
would require the phrase “as conformed to the image of his Son” to
be conjoined with it. Paul, however, makes conformity to Christ to
be the result, not the foreseen condition, of God’s
foreordination; see Commentaries of Hodge and Lange.

(_c_) With assertions that this choice is matter of grace, or unmerited favor, bestowed in eternity past:

_Eph. 1:5‐8_—“_foreordained ... according to the good pleasure of
his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely
bestowed on us in the Beloved ... according to the riches of his
grace_”; _2:8_—“_by grace have ye been saved through faith; and
that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God_”—here “_and that_”
(neuter τοῦτο, _verse 8_) refers, not to “faith” but to
“salvation.” But faith is elsewhere represented as having its
source in God,—see page 782, (_k_). _2 Tim. 1:9_—“_his own purpose
and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times
eternal._” Election is not because of our merit. McLaren: “God’s
own mercy, spontaneous, undeserved, condescending, moved him. God
is his own motive. His love is not drawn out by our loveableness,
but wells up, like an artesian spring, from the depths of his
nature.”

(_d_) That the Father has given certain persons to the Son, to be his peculiar possession:

_John 6:37_—“_All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto
me_”; _17:2_—“_that whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he
should give eternal life_”; _6_—“_I manifested thy name unto the
men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and
thou gavest them to me_”; _9_—“_I pray not for the world, but for
those whom thou hast given me_”; _Eph. 1:14_—“_unto the redemption
of God’s own possession_”; _1 Pet. 2:9_—“_a people for God’s own
possession._”

(_e_) That the fact of believers being united thus to Christ is due wholly to God:

_John 6:44_—“_No man can come to me, except the Father that sent
me draw him_”; _10:26_—“_ye believe not, because ye are not of my
sheep_”; _1 Cor. 1:30_—“_of him_ [God] _are ye in Christ Jesus_” =
your being, as Christians, in union with Christ, is due wholly to
God.

(_f_) That those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life, and they only, shall be saved:

_Phil. 4:3_—“_the rest of my fellow‐workers, whose names are in
the book of life_”; _Rev. 20:15_—“_And if any was not found
written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire_”;
_21:27_—“_there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean
... but only they that are written in the Lamb’s book of life_” =
God’s decrees of electing grace in Christ.

(_g_) That these are allotted, as disciples, to certain of God’s servants:

_Acts 17:4_—(literally)—“_some of them were persuaded, and were
allotted_ [by God] _to Paul and Silas_”—as disciples (so Meyer and
Grimm); _18:9, 10_—“_Be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy
peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to harm
thee: for I have much people in this city._”

(_h_) Are made the recipients of a special call of God:

_Rom. 8:28, 30_—“_called according to his purpose ... whom he
foreordained, them he also called_”; _9:23, 24_—“_vessels of
mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he also
called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles_”;
_11:29_—“_for the gifts and the calling of God are not repented
of_”; _1 Cor. 1:24‐29_—“_unto them that are called ... Christ the
power of God, and the wisdom of God.... For behold your calling,
brethren, ... the things that are despised, did God choose, yea
and the things that are not, that he might bring to naught the
things that are: that no flesh should glory before God_”; _Gal.
1:15, 16_—“_when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated
me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace,
to reveal his Son in me_”; _cf._ _James 2:23_—“_and he_ [Abraham]
_was called_ [to be] _the friend of God_.”

(_i_) Are born into God’s kingdom, not by virtue of man’s will, but of God’s will:

_John 1:13_—“_born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God_”; _James 1:18_—“_Of his own
will he brought us forth by the word of truth_”; _1 John
4:10_—“_Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved
us._” S. S. Times, Oct. 14, 1899—“The law of love is the
expression of God’s loving nature, and it is only by our
participation of the divine nature that we are enabled to render
it obedience. ‘Loving God,’ says Bushnell, ‘is but letting God
love us.’ So John’s great saying may be rendered in the present
tense: ‘not that we love God, but that he loves us.’ Or, as Madame
Guyon sings: ‘I love my God, but with no love of mine, For I have
none to give; I love thee, Lord, but all the love is thine, For by
thy life I live’.”

(_j_) Receiving repentance, as the gift of God:

_Acts 5:31_—“_Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince
and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of
sins_”; _11:18_—“_Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted
repentance unto life_”; _2 Tim. 2:25_—“_correcting them that
oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance
unto the knowledge of the truth._” Of course it is true that God
might give repentance simply by inducing man to repent by the
agency of his word, his providence and his Spirit. But more than
this seems to be meant when the Psalmist prays: “_Create in me a
clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me_” (_Ps.
51:10_).

(_k_) Faith, as the gift of God:

_John 6:65_—“_no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him
of the Father_”; _Acts 15:8, 9_—“_God ... giving them the Holy
Spirit ... cleansing their hearts by faith_”; _Rom.
12:3_—“_according as God hath dealt to each man a measure of
faith_”; _1 Cor. 12:9_—“_to another faith, in the same Spirit_”;
_Gal. 5:22_—“_the fruit of the Spirit is ... faith_” (A. V.);
_Phil. 2:13_—In all faith, “_it is God who worketh in you both to
will and to work, for his good pleasure_”; _Eph. 6:23_—“_Peace be
to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ_”; _John 3:8_—“_The Spirit breatheth where he
wills, and thou_ [as a consequence] _hearest his voice_” (so
Bengel); see A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 166; _1 Cor.
12:3_—“_No man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy
Spirit_”—but calling Jesus “_Lord_” is an essential part of
faith,—faith therefore is the work of the Holy Spirit; _Tit.
1:1_—“_the faith of God’s elect_”—election is not in consequence
of faith, but faith is in consequence of election (Ellicott). If
they get their faith of themselves, then salvation is not due to
grace. If God gave the faith, then it was in his purpose, and this
is election.

(_l_) Holiness and good works, as the gift of God.

_Eph. 1:4_—“_chose us in him before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy_”; _2:9, 10_—“_not of works, that no man
should glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in
them_”; _1 Pet. 1:2_—elect “_unto obedience._” On Scripture
testimony, see Hovey, Manual of Theol. and Ethics, 258‐261; also
art. on Predestination, by Warfield, in Hastings’ Dictionary of
the Bible.

These passages furnish an abundant and conclusive refutation, on the one hand, of the Lutheran view that election is simply God’s determination from eternity to provide an objective salvation for universal humanity; and, on the other hand, of the Arminian view that election is God’s determination from eternity to save certain individuals upon the ground of their foreseen faith.

Roughly stated, we may say that Schleiermacher elects all men
subjectively; Lutherans all men objectively; Arminians all
believers; Augustinians all foreknown as God’s own. Schleiermacher
held that decree logically precedes foreknowledge, and that
election is individual, not national. But he made election to
include all men, the only difference between them being that of
earlier or of later conversion. Thus in his system Calvinism and
Restorationism go hand in hand. Murray, in Hastings’ Bible
Dictionary, seems to take this view.

Lutheranism is the assertion that original grace preceded original
sin, and that the _Quia Voluit_ of Tertullian and of Calvin was
based on wisdom, in Christ. The Lutheran holds that the believer
is simply the non‐resistant subject of common grace; while the
Arminian holds that the believer is the coöperant subject of
common grace. Lutheranism enters more fully than Calvinism into
the nature of faith. It thinks more of the human agency, while
Calvinism thinks more of the divine purpose. It thinks more of the
church, while Calvinism thinks more of Scripture. The Arminian
conception is that God has appointed men to salvation, just as he
has appointed them to condemnation, in view of their dispositions
and acts. As Justification is in view of _present_ faith, so the
Arminian regards Election as taking place in view of _future_
faith. Arminianism must reject the doctrine of regeneration as
well as that of election, and must in both cases make the act of
man precede the act of God.

All varieties of view may be found upon this subject among
theologians. John Milton, in his Christian Doctrine, holds that
“there is no particular predestination or election, but only
general.... There can be no reprobation of individuals from all
eternity.” Archbishop Sumner: “Election is predestination of
communities and nations to external knowledge and to the
privileges of the gospel.” Archbishop Whately: “Election is the
choice of individual men to membership in the external church and
the means of grace.” Gore, in Lux Mundi, 320—“The elect represent
not the special purpose of God for a few, but the universal
purpose which under the circumstances can only be realized through
a few.” R. V. Foster, a Cumberland Presbyterian, opposed to
absolute predestination, says in his Systematic Theology that the
divine decree “is unconditional in its origin and conditional in
its application.”

B. From Reason.

(_a_) What God does, he has eternally purposed to do. Since he bestows special regenerating grace on some, he must have eternally purposed to bestow it,—in other words, must have chosen them to eternal life. Thus the doctrine of election is only a special application of the doctrine of decrees.

The New Haven views are essentially Arminian. See Fitch, on
Predestination and Election, in Christian Spectator, 3:622—“God’s
foreknowledge of what would be the results of his present works of
grace _preceded_ in the order of nature the purpose to pursue
those works, and presented the _grounds_ of that purpose. Whom he
foreknew—as the people who would be guided to his kingdom by his
present works of grace, in which result lay the whole objective
motive for undertaking those works—he did also, by resolving on
those works, predestinate.” Here God is very erroneously said to
_foreknow_ what is as yet included in a merely _possible_ plan. As
we have seen in our discussion of Decrees, there can be no
foreknowledge, unless there is something fixed, in the future, to
be foreknown; and this fixity can be due only to God’s
predetermination. So, in the present case, election must precede
prescience.

The New Haven views are also given in N. W. Taylor, Revealed
Theology, 373‐444; for criticism upon them, see Tyler, Letters on
New Haven Theology, 172‐180. If God desired the salvation of Judas
as much as of Peter, how was Peter elected in distinction from
Judas? To the question, “_Who made thee to differ?_” the answer
must be, “Not God, but my own will.” See Finney, in Bib. Sac.,
1877:711—“God must have foreknown whom he _could_ wisely save,
prior in the order of nature to his determining to save them. But
his knowing who _would_ be saved, must have been, in the order of
nature, subsequent to his election or determination to save them,
and dependent upon that determination.” Foster, Christian Life and
Theology, 70—“The doctrine of election is the consistent
formulation, _sub specie eternitatis_, of prevenient grace....
86—With the doctrine of prevenient grace, the evangelical doctrine
stands or falls.”

(_b_) This purpose cannot be conditioned upon any merit or faith of those who are chosen, since there is no such merit,—faith itself being God’s gift and foreordained by him. Since man’s faith is foreseen only as the result of God’s work of grace, election proceeds rather upon foreseen unbelief. Faith, as the effect of election, cannot at the same time be the cause of election.

There is an analogy between prayer and its answer, on the one
hand, and faith and salvation on the other. God has decreed answer
in connection with prayer, and salvation in connection with faith.
But he does not change his mind when men pray, or when they
believe. As he fulfils his purpose by inspiring true prayer, so he
fulfils his purpose by giving faith. Augustine: “He chooses us,
not because we believe, but that we may believe: lest we should
say that we first chose him.” (_John 15:16_—“_Ye did not choose
me, but I chose you_”; _Rom. 9:21_—“_from the same lump_”;
_16_—“_not of him that willeth_”.)

Here see the valuable discussion of Wardlaw, Systematic Theol.,
2:485‐549—“Election and salvation on the ground of works foreseen
are not different in principle from election and salvation on the
ground of works performed.” _Cf._ _Prov. 21:1_—“_The king’s heart
is in the hand of Jehovah as the watercourses; He turneth it
whithersoever he will_”—as easily as the rivulets of the eastern
fields are turned by the slightest motion of the hand or the foot
of the husbandman; _Ps. 110:3_—“_Thy people offer themselves
willingly In the day of thy power._”

(_c_) The depravity of the human will is such that, without this decree to bestow special divine influences upon some, all, without exception, would have rejected Christ’s salvation after it was offered to them; and so all, without exception, must have perished. Election, therefore, may be viewed as a necessary consequence of God’s decree to provide an objective redemption, if that redemption is to have any subjective result in human salvation.

Before the prodigal son seeks the father, the father must first
seek him,—a truth brought out in the preceding parables of the
lost money and the lost sheep (_Luke 15_). Without election, all
are lost. Newman Smyth, Orthodox Theology of To‐day, 56—“The worst
doctrine of election, to‐day, is taught by our natural science.
The scientific doctrine of natural selection is the doctrine of
election, robbed of all hope, and without a single touch of human
pity in it.”

Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:335—“Suppose the deistic view be true: God
created men and left them; surely no man could complain of the
results. But now suppose God, foreseeing these very results of
creation, should create. Would it make any difference, if God’s
purpose, as to the futurition of such a world, should precede it?
Augustine supposes that God did purpose such a world as the deist
supposes, with two exceptions: (1) he interposes to restrain evil;
(2) he intervenes, by providence, by Christ, and by the Holy
Spirit, to save some from destruction.” Election is simply God’s
determination that the sufferings of Christ shall not be in vain;
that all men shall not be lost; that some shall be led to accept
Christ; that to this end special influences of his Spirit shall be
given.

At first sight it might appear that God’s appointing men to
salvation was simply permissive, as was his appointment to
condemnation (_1 Pet. 2:8_), and that this appointment was merely
indirect by creating them with foresight of their faith or their
disobedience. But the decree of salvation is not simply
permissive,—it is efficient also. It is a decree to use special
means for the salvation of some. A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures,
143—“The dead man cannot spontaneously originate his own
quickening, nor the creature his own creating, nor the infant his
own begetting. Whatever man may do after regeneration, the first
quickening of the dead must originate with God.”

Hovey, Manual of Theology, 287—“Calvinism, reduced to its lowest
terms, is election of believers, not on account of any foreseen
conduct of theirs, either before or in the act of conversion,
which would be spiritually better than that of others influenced
by the same grace, but on account of their foreseen greater
usefulness in manifesting the glory of God to moral beings and of
their foreseen non‐commission of the sin against the Holy Spirit.”
But even here we must attribute the greater usefulness and the
abstention from fatal sin, not to man’s unaided powers but to the
divine decree: see _Eph. 2:10_—“_For we are his workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared
that we should walk in them._”

(_d_) The doctrine of election becomes more acceptable to reason when we remember: first, that God’s decree is eternal, and in a certain sense is contemporaneous with man’s belief in Christ; secondly, that God’s decree to create involves the decree of all that in the exercise of man’s freedom will follow; thirdly, that God’s decree is the decree of him who is all in all, so that our willing and doing is at the same time the working of him who decrees our willing and doing. The whole question turns upon the initiative in human salvation: if this belongs to God, then in spite of difficulties we must accept the doctrine of election.

The timeless existence of God may be the source of many of our
difficulties with regard to election, and with a proper view of
God’s eternity these difficulties might be removed. Mason, Faith
of the Gospel, 349‐351—“Eternity is commonly thought of as if it
were a state or series anterior to time and to be resumed again
when time comes to an end. This, however, only reduces eternity to
time again, and puts the life of God in the same line with our
own, only coming from further back.... At present we do not see
how time and eternity meet.”

Royce, World and Individual, 2:374—“God does not temporally
foreknow anything, except so far as he is expressed in us finite
beings. The knowledge that exists in time is the knowledge that
finite beings possess, in so far as they are finite. And no such
foreknowledge can predict the special features of individual deeds
precisely so far as they are unique. Foreknowledge in time is
possible only of the general, and of the causally predetermined,
and not of the unique and free. Hence neither God nor man can
foreknow perfectly, at any temporal moment, what a free will agent
is yet to do. On the other hand, the Absolute possesses a perfect
knowledge at one glance of the whole of the temporal order, past,
present and future. This knowledge is ill called foreknowledge. It
is eternal knowledge. And as there is an eternal knowledge of all
individuality and of all freedom, free acts are known as
occurring, like the chords in the musical succession, precisely
when and how they actually occur.” While we see much truth in the
preceding statement, we find in it no bar to our faith that God
can translate his eternal knowledge into finite knowledge and can
thus put it for special purposes in possession of his creatures.

E. H. Johnson, Theology, 2d ed., 250—“Foreknowing what his
creatures would do, God decreed their destiny when he decreed
their creation; and this would still be the case, although every
man had the partial control over his destiny that Arminians aver,
or even the complete control that Pelagians claim. The decree is
as absolute as if there were no freedom, but it leaves them as
free as if there were no decree.” A. H. Strong, Christ in
Creation, 40, 42—“As the Logos or divine Reason, Christ dwells in
humanity everywhere and constitutes the principle of its being.
Humanity shares with Christ in the image of God. That image is
never wholly lost. It is completely restored in sinners when the
Spirit of Christ secures control of their wills and leads them to
merge their life in his.... If Christ be the principle and life of
all things, then divine sovereignty and human freedom, if they are
not absolutely reconciled, at least lose their ancient antagonism,
and we can rationally ‘_work out our own salvation_,’ for the very
reason that ‘_it is God that worketh in us, both to will and to
work, for his good pleasure_’ (_Phil. 2:12, 13_).”

2. Objections to the Doctrine of Election.

(_a_) It is unjust to those who are not included in this purpose of salvation.—Answer: Election deals, not simply with creatures, but with sinful, guilty, and condemned creatures. That any should be saved, is matter of pure grace, and those who are not included in this purpose of salvation suffer only the due reward of their deeds. There is, therefore, no injustice in God’s election. We may better praise God that he saves any, than charge him with injustice because he saves so few.

God can say to all men, saved or unsaved, “_Friend, I do thee no
wrong.... Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine
own?_” (_Mat. 20:13, 15_). The question is not whether a father
will treat his children alike, but whether a sovereign must treat
condemned rebels alike. It is not true that, because the Governor
pardons one convict from the penitentiary, he must therefore
pardon all. When he pardons one, no injury is done to those who
are left. But, in God’s government, there is still less reason for
objection; for God offers pardon to all. Nothing prevents men from
being pardoned but their unwillingness to accept his pardon.
Election is simply God’s determination to make certain persons
willing to accept it. Because justice cannot save all, shall it
therefore save none?

Augustine, De Predest. Sanct., 8—“Why does not God teach all?
Because it is in mercy that he teaches all whom he does teach,
while it is in judgment that he does not teach those whom he does
not teach.” In his Manual of Theology and Ethics, 260, Hovey
remarks that _Rom. 9:20_—“_who art thou that repliest against
God?_”—teaches, not that might makes right, but that God is
morally entitled to glorify either his righteousness or his mercy
in disposing of a guilty race. It is not that he chooses to save
only a few ship‐wrecked and drowning creatures, but that he
chooses to save only a part of a great company who are bent on
committing suicide. _Prov. 8:36_—“_he that sinneth against me
wrongeth his own soul: All they that hate me love death._” It is
best for the universe at large that some should be permitted to
have their own way and show how dreadful a thing is opposition to
God. See Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:455.

(_b_) It represents God as partial in his dealings and a respecter of persons.—Answer: Since there is nothing in men that determines God’s choice of one rather than another, the objection is invalid. It would equally apply to God’s selection of certain nations, as Israel, and certain individuals, as Cyrus, to be recipients of special temporal gifts. If God is not to be regarded as partial in not providing a salvation for fallen angels, he cannot be regarded as partial in not providing regenerating influences of his Spirit for the whole race of fallen men.

_Ps. 44:3_—“_For they gat not the land in possession by their own
sword, Neither did their own arm save them; But thy right hand,
and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, Because thou wast
favorable unto them_”; _Is. 45:1, 4, 5_—“_Thus saith Jehovah to
his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue
nations before him.... For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel my
chosen, I have called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee,
though thou hast not known me_”; _Luke 4:25‐27_—“_There were many
widows in Israel ... and unto none of them was Elijah sent, but
only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, unto a woman that was a
widow. And there were many lepers in Israel ... and none of them
was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian_”; _1 Cor. 4:7_—“_For who
maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not
receive? but if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if
thou hadst not received it?_” _2 Pet. 2:4_—“_God spared not angels
when they sinned, but cast them down to hell_”; _Heb. 2:16_—“_For
verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the
seed of Abraham._”

Is God partial, in choosing Israel, Cyrus, Naaman? Is God partial,
in bestowing upon some of his servants special ministerial gifts?
Is God partial, in not providing a salvation for fallen angels? In
God’s providence, one man is born in a Christian land, the son of
a noble family, is endowed with beauty of person, splendid
talents, exalted opportunities, immense wealth. Another is born at
the Five Points, or among the Hottentots, amid the degradation and
depravity of actual, or practical, heathenism. We feel that it is
irreverent to complain of God’s dealings in providence. What right
have sinners to complain of God’s dealings in the distribution of
his grace? Hovey: “We have no reason to think that God treats all
moral beings alike. We should be glad to hear that other races are
treated better than we.”

Divine election is only the ethical side and interpretation of
natural selection. In the latter God chooses certain forms of the
vegetable and animal kingdom without merit of theirs. They are
preserved while others die. In the matter of individual health,
talent, property, one is taken and the other left. If we call all
this the result of system, the reply is that God chose the system,
knowing precisely what would come of it. Bruce, Apologetics,
201—“Election to distinction in philosophy or art is not
incomprehensible, for these are not matters of vital concern; but
election to holiness on the part of some, and to unholiness on the
part of others, would be inconsistent with God’s own holiness.”
But there is no such election to unholiness except on the part of
man himself. God’s election secures only the good. See (_c_)
below.

J. J. Murphy, Natural Selection and Spiritual Freedom, 73—“The
world is ordered on a basis of inequality; in the organic world,
as Darwin has shown, it is of inequality—of favored races—that all
progress comes; history shows the same to be true of the human and
spiritual world. All human progress is due to elect human
individuals, elect not only to be a blessing to themselves, but
still more to be a blessing to multitudes of others. Any
superiority, whether in the natural or in the mental and spiritual
world, becomes a vantage‐ground for gaining a greater
superiority.... It is the method of the divine government, acting
in the provinces both of nature and of grace, that all benefit
should come to the many through the elect few.”

(_c_) It represents God as arbitrary.—Answer: It represents God, not as arbitrary, but as exercising the free choice of a wise and sovereign will, in ways and for reasons which are inscrutable to us. To deny the possibility of such a choice is to deny God’s personality. To deny that God has reasons for his choice is to deny his wisdom. The doctrine of election finds these reasons, not in men, but in God.

When a regiment is decimated for insubordination, the fact that
every tenth man is chosen for death is for reasons; but the
reasons are not in the men. In one case, the reason for God’s
choice seems revealed: _1 Tim. 1:16_—“_howbeit for this cause I
obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth
all his longsuffering, for an ensample of them that should
thereafter believe on him unto eternal life_”—here Paul indicates
that the reason why God chose him was that he was so great a
sinner: _verse 15_—“_Christ Jesus came into the world to save
sinners; of whom I am chief._” Hovey remarks that “the uses to
which God can put men, as vessels of grace, may determine his
selection of them.” But since the naturally weak are saved, as
well as the naturally strong, we cannot draw any general
conclusion, or discern any general rule, in God’s dealings, unless
it be this, that in election God seeks to illustrate the greatness
and the variety of his grace,—the reasons lying, therefore, not in
men, but in God. We must remember that God’s _sovereignty_ is the
sovereignty of _God_—the infinitely wise, holy and loving God, in
whose hands the destinies of men can be left more safely than in
the hands of the wisest, most just, and most kind of his
creatures.

We must believe in the grace of sovereignty as well as in the
sovereignty of grace. Election and reprobation are not matters of
arbitrary will. God saves all whom he can wisely save. He will
show benevolence in the salvation of mankind just so far as he can
without prejudice to holiness. No man can be saved without God,
but it is also true that there is no man whom God is not willing
to save. H. B. Smith, System, 511—“It may be that many of the
finally impenitent resist more light than many of the saved.”
Harris, Moral Evolution, 401 (for substance)—“Sovereignty is not
lost in Fatherhood, but is recovered as the divine law of
righteous love. Doubtless thou art our Father, though Augustine be
ignorant of us, and Calvin acknowledge us not.” Hooker, Eccl.
Polity, 1:2—“They err who think that of God’s will there is no
reason except his will.” T. Erskine, The Brazen Serpent,
259—Sovereignty is “just a name for what is _unrevealed_ of God.”

We do not know _all_ of God’s reasons for saving particular men,
but we do know _some_ of the reasons, for he has revealed them to
us. These reasons are not men’s merits or works. We have mentioned
the first of these reasons: (1) Men’s greater sin and need; _1
Tim. 1:16_—“_that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all
his longsuffering._” We may add to this: (2) The fact that men
have not sinned against the Holy Spirit and made themselves
unreceptive to Christ’s salvation; _1 Tim. 1:13_—“_I obtained
mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief_”—the fact that
Paul had not sinned with full knowledge of what he did was a
reason why God could choose him. (3) Men’s ability by the help of
Christ to be witnesses and martyrs for their Lord; _Acts 9:15,
16_—“_he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the
Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will show
him how many things he must suffer for my name’s sake._” As Paul’s
mission to the Gentiles may have determined God’s choice, so
Augustine’s mission to the sensual and abandoned may have had the
same influence. But if Paul’s sins, as foreseen, constituted one
reason why God chose to save him, why might not his ability to
serve the kingdom have constituted another reason? We add
therefore: (4) Men’s foreseen ability to serve Christ’s kingdom in
bringing others to the knowledge of the truth; _John 15:16_—“_I
chose you and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit._”
Notice however that this is choice _to_ service, and not simply
choice _on account of service_. In all these cases the reasons do
not lie in the men themselves, for what these men are and what
they possess is due to God’s providence and grace.

(_d_) It tends to immorality, by representing men’s salvation as independent of their own obedience.—Answer: The objection ignores the fact that the salvation of believers is ordained only in connection with their regeneration and sanctification, as means; and that the certainty of final triumph is the strongest incentive to strenuous conflict with sin.

Plutarch: “God is the brave man’s hope, and not the coward’s
excuse.” The purposes of God are an anchor to the storm‐tossed
spirit. But a ship needs engine, as well as anchor. God does not
elect to save any without repentance and faith. Some hold the
doctrine of election, but the doctrine of election does not hold
them. Such should ponder _1 Pet. 1:2_, in which Christians are
said to be elect, “_in sanctification of the Spirit, unto
obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ_.”

Augustine: “He loved her [the church] foul, that he might make her
fair.” Dr. John Watson (Ian McLaren): “The greatest reinforcement
religion could have in our time would be a return to the ancient
belief in the sovereignty of God.” This is because there is lack
of a strong conviction of sin, guilt, and helplessness, still
remaining pride and unwillingness to submit to God, imperfect
faith in God’s trustworthiness and goodness. We must not exclude
Arminians from our fellowship—there are too many good Methodists
for that. But we may maintain that they hold but half the truth,
and that absence of the doctrine of election from their creed
makes preaching less serious and character less secure.

(_e_) It inspires pride in those who think themselves elect.—Answer: This is possible only in the case of those who pervert the doctrine. On the contrary, its proper influence is to humble men. Those who exalt themselves above others, upon the ground that they are special favorites of God, have reason to question their election.