Chapter VI: Section I: The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its Preparation (2)

In the novel, there was great effectiveness in the lover’s plea to
the object of his affection, that he had loved since he had first
set his eyes upon her in her childhood. But God’s love for us is
of longer standing than that. It dates back to a time before we
were born,—aye, even to eternity past. It is a love which was
fastened upon us, although God knew the worst of us. It is
unchanging, because founded upon his infinite and eternal love to
Christ. _Jer. 31:3_—“_Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying,
Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with
lovingkindness have I drawn thee_”; _Rom. 8:31‐39_—“_If God is for
us, who is against us?... Who shall separate us from the love of
Christ?_” And the answer is, that nothing “_shall be able to
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord_.” This eternal love subdues and humbles: _Ps. 115:1_—“_Not
unto us, O Jehovah, not unto us, But unto thy name give glory For
thy lovingkindness, and for thy truth’s sake._”

Of the effect of the doctrine of election, Calvin, in his
Institutes, 3:22:1, remarks that “when the human mind hears of it,
its irritation breaks all restraint, and it discovers as serious
and violent agitation as if alarmed by the sound of a martial
trumpet.” The cause of this agitation is the apprehension of the
fact that one is an enemy of God and yet absolutely dependent upon
his mercy. This apprehension leads normally to submission. But the
conquered rebel can give no thanks to himself,—all thanks are due
to God who has chosen and renewed him. The affections elicited are
not those of pride and self‐complacency, but of gratitude and
love.

Christian hymnology witnesses to these effects. Isaac Watts (†
1748): “Why was I made to hear thy voice And enter while there’s
room, When thousands make a wretched choice, And rather starve
than come. ’T was the same love that spread the feast That sweetly
forced me in; Else I had still refused to taste, And perished in
my sin. Pity the nations, O our God! Constrain the earth to come;
Send thy victorious word abroad, And bring the wanderers home.”
Josiah Conder († 1855): “’Tis not that I did choose thee, For,
Lord, that could not be; This heart would still refuse thee; But
thou hast chosen me;—Hast, from the sin that stained me, Washed me
and set me free, And to this end ordained me That I should live to
thee. ’T was sovereign mercy called me, And taught my opening
mind; The world had else enthralled me, To heavenly glories blind.
My heart owns none above thee: For thy rich grace I thirst; This
knowing,—if I love thee, Thou must have loved me first.”

(_f_) It discourages effort for the salvation of the impenitent, whether on their own part or on the part of others.—Answer: Since it is a secret decree, it cannot hinder or discourage such effort. On the other hand, it is a ground of encouragement, and so a stimulus to effort; for, without election, it is certain that all would be lost (_cf._ Acts 18:10). While it humbles the sinner, so that he is willing to err for mercy, it encourages him also by showing him that some will be saved, and (since election and faith are inseparably connected) that he will be saved, if he will only believe. While it makes the Christian feel entirely dependent on God’s power, in his efforts for the impenitent, it leads him to say with Paul that he “endures all things for the elects’ sake, that they also may attain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10).

God’s decree that Paul’s ship’s company should be saved (_Acts
27:24_) did not obviate the necessity of their abiding in the ship
(_verse 31_). In marriage, man’s election does not exclude
woman’s; so God’s election does not exclude man’s. There is just
as much need of effort as if there were no election. Hence the
question for the sinner is not, “Am I one of the elect?” but
rather, “What shall I do to be saved?” Milton represents the
spirits of hell as debating foreknowledge and free will, in
wandering mazes lost.

No man is saved until he ceases to debate, and begins to act. And
yet no man will thus begin to act, unless God’s Spirit moves him.
The Lord encouraged Paul by saying to him: “_I have much people in
this city_” (_Acts 18:10_)—people whom I will bring in through thy
word. “Old Adam is too strong for young Melanchthon.” If God does
not regenerate, there is no hope of success in preaching: “God
stands powerless before the majesty of man’s lordly will. Sinners
have the glory of their own salvation. To pray God to convert a
man is absurd. God elects the man, because he foresees that the
man will elect himself” (see S. R. Mason, Truth Unfolded,
298‐307). The doctrine of election does indeed cut off the hopes
of those who place confidence in themselves; but it is best that
such hopes should be destroyed, and that in place of them should
be put a hope in the sovereign grace of God. The doctrine of
election does teach man’s absolute dependence upon God, and the
impossibility of any disappointment or disarrangement of the
divine plans arising from the disobedience of the sinner, and it
humbles human pride until it is willing to take the place of a
suppliant for mercy.

Rowland Hill was criticized for preaching election and yet
exhorting sinners to repent, and was told that he should preach
only to the elect. He replied that, if his critic would put a
chalk‐mark on all the elect, he would preach only to them. But
this is not the whole truth. We are not only ignorant who God’s
elect are, but we are set to preach to both elect and non‐elect
(_Ez. 2:7_—“_thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they
will hear, or whether they will forbear_”), with the certainty
that to the former our preaching will make a higher heaven, to the
latter a deeper hell (_2 Cor. 2:15, 16_—“_For we are a sweet savor
of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that
perish; to the one a savor from death unto death; to the other a
savor from life unto life_”; _cf._ _Luke 2:34_—“_this child is set
for the falling and the rising of many in Israel_”—for the falling
of some, and for the rising up of others).

Jesus’ own thanksgiving in _Mat. 11:25, 26_—“_I thank thee, O
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these
things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto
babes: yea, Father, for so it was well‐pleasing in thy sight_”—is
immediately followed by his invitation in _verse 28_—“_Come unto
me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest._” There is no contradiction in his mind between sovereign
grace and the free invitations of the gospel.

G. W. Northrup, in The Standard, Sept. 19, 1889—“1. God will save
every one of the human race whom he can save and remain God; 2.
Every member of the race has a full and fair probation, so that
all might be saved and would be saved were they to use aright the
light which they already have.”... (Private letter): “Limitations
of God in the bestowment of salvation: 1. In the power of God in
relation to free will; 2. In the benevolence of God which requires
the greatest good of creation, or the greatest aggregate good of
the greatest number; 3. In the purpose of God to make the most
perfect self‐limitation; 4. In the sovereignty of God, as a
prerogative absolutely optional in its exercise; 5. In the
holiness of God, which involves immutable limitations on his part
in dealing with moral agents. Nothing but some absolute
impossibility, metaphysical or moral, could have prevented him
’whose nature and whose name is love’ from decreeing and securing
the confirmation of all moral agents in holiness and blessedness
forever.”

(_g_) The decree of election implies a decree of reprobation.—Answer: The decree of reprobation is not a positive decree, like that of election, but a permissive decree to leave the sinner to his self‐chosen rebellion and its natural consequences of punishment.

Election and sovereignty are only sources of good. Election is not
a decree to destroy,—it is a decree only to save. When we elect a
President, we do not need to hold a second election to determine
that the remaining millions shall be non‐Presidents. It is
needless to apply contrivance or force. Sinners, like water, if
simply let alone, will run down hill to ruin. The decree of
reprobation is simply a decree to do nothing—a decree to leave the
sinner to himself. The natural result of this judicial forsaking,
on the part of God, is the hardening and destruction of the
sinner. But it must not be forgotten that this hardening and
destruction are not due to any positive efficiency of God,—they
are a self‐hardening and a self‐destruction,—and God’s judicial
forsaking is only the just penalty of the sinner’s guilty
rejection of offered mercy.

See _Hosea 11:8_—“_How shall I give thee up, Ephraim?... my heart
is turned within me, my compassions are kindled together_”;
_4:17_—“_Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone_”; _Rom. 9:22,
23_—“_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_”—here notice that “_which he afore prepared_” declares a
positive divine efficiency, in the case of the vessels of mercy,
while “_fitted unto destruction_” intimates no such positive
agency of God,—the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for
destruction; _2 Tim. 2:20_—“_vessels ... some unto honor, and some
unto dishonor_”; _1 Pet. 2:8_—“_they stumble at the word, being
disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed_”; _Jude 4_—“_who
were of old set forth_ [‘_written of beforehand_’—Am. Rev.] _unto
this condemnation_”; _Mat. 25:34, 41_—“_the kingdom prepared for
you ... the eternal fire which is prepared_ [not for you, nor for
men, but] _for the devil and his angels_” = there is an election
to life, but no reprobation to death; a “_book of life_” (_Rev.
21:27_), but no book of death.

E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 313—“Reprobation, in the sense
of absolute predestination to sin and eternal damnation, is
neither a sequence of the doctrine of election, nor the teaching
of the Scriptures.” Men are not “_appointed_” to disobedience and
stumbling in the same way that they are “_appointed_” to
salvation. God uses positive means to save, but not to destroy.
Henry Ward Beecher: “The elect are whosoever will; the non‐elect
are whosoever won’t.” George A. Gordon, New Epoch for Faith,
44—“Election understood would have been the saving strength of
Israel; election misunderstood was its ruin. The nation felt that
the election of it meant the rejection of other nations.... The
Christian church has repeated Israel’s mistake.”

The Westminster Confession reads: “By the decree of God, for the
manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated
unto everlasting life, and others to everlasting death. These
angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are
particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so
certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or
diminished. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the
unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or
withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign
power over his creatures, to pass by and to ordain them to
dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious
justice.” This reads as if both the saved and the lost were made
originally for their respective final estates without respect to
character. It is supralapsarianism. It is certain that the
supralapsarians were in the majority in the Westminster Assembly,
and that they determined the form of the statement, although there
were many sublapsarians who objected that it was only on account
of their foreseen wickedness that any were reprobated. In its
later short statement of doctrine the Presbyterian body in America
has made it plain that God’s decree of reprobation is a permissive
decree, and that it places no barrier in the way of any man’s
salvation.

On the general subject of Election, see Mozley, Predestination;
Payne, Divine Sovereignty; Ridgeley, Works, 1:261‐324, esp. 322;
Edwards, Works, 2:527 _sq._; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 446‐458;
Martensen, Dogmatics, 362‐382; and especially Wardlaw, Systematic
Theology, 485‐549; H. B. Smith, Syst. of Christian Theology,
502‐514; Maule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 36‐56; Peck, in
Bapt. Quar. Rev., Oct. 1891:689‐706. On objections to election,
and Spurgeon’s answers to them, see Williams, Reminiscences of
Spurgeon, 189. On the homiletical uses of the doctrine of
election, see Bib. Sac., Jan. 1893:79‐92.

II. Calling.

Calling is that act of God by which men are invited to accept, by faith, the salvation provided by Christ.—The Scriptures distinguish between:

(_a_) _The general, or external, call_ to all men through God’s providence, word, and Spirit.

_Is. 45:22_—“_Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the
earth; for I am God, and there is none else_”; _55:6_—“_Seek ye
Jehovah while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is
near_”; _65:12_—“_when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake,
ye did not hear; but ye did that which was evil in mine eyes, and
chose that wherein I delighted not_”; _Ez. 33:11_—“_As I live,
saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the
wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye,
turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of
Israel?_” _Mat. 11:28_—“_Come unto me, all ye that labor and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest_”; _22:3_—“_sent forth his
servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast: and
they would not come_”; _Mark 16:15_—“_Go ye into all the world,
and preach the gospel to the whole creation_”; _John 12:32_—“_And
I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto
myself_”—draw, not drag; _Rev. 3:20_—“_Behold, I stand at the door
and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come
in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me._”

(_b_) _The special, efficacious call_ of the Holy Spirit to the elect.

_Luke 14:23_—“_Go out into the highways and hedges, and constrain
them to come in, that my house may be filled_”; _Rom. 1:7_—“_to
all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace
to you and peace from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ_”;
_8:30_—“_whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he
called, them he also justified_”; _11:29_—“_For the gifts and the
calling of God are not repented of_”; _1 Cor. 1:23, 24_—“_but we
preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto
Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and
Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God_”;
_26_—“_For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after
the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called_”; _Phil.
3:14_—“_I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high_
[marg. ‘_upward_’] _calling of God in Christ Jesus_”; _Eph.
1:18_—“_that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the
riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints_”; _1 Thess.
2:12_—“_to the end that ye should walk worthily of God, who
calleth you into his own kingdom and glory_”; _2 Thess.
2:14_—“_whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the
obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ_”; _2 Tim.
1:9_—“_who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not
according to our works, but according to his own purpose and
grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal_”;
_Heb. 3:1_—“_holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling_”; _2
Pet. 1:10_—“_Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make
your calling and election sure._”

Two questions only need special consideration:

A. Is God’s general call sincere?

This is denied, upon the ground that such sincerity is incompatible, first, with the inability of the sinner to obey; and secondly, with the design of God to bestow only upon the elect the special grace without which they will not obey.

(_a_) To the first objection we reply that, since this inability is not a physical but a moral inability, consisting simply in the settled perversity of an evil will, there can be no insincerity in offering salvation to all, especially when the offer is in itself a proper motive to obedience.

God’s call to all men to repent and to believe the gospel is no
more insincere than his command to all men to love him with all
the heart. There is no obstacle in the way of men’s obedience to
the gospel, that does not exist to prevent their obedience to the
law. If it is proper to publish the commands of the law, it is
proper to publish the invitations of the gospel. A human being may
be perfectly sincere in giving an invitation which he knows will
be refused. He may desire to have the invitation accepted, while
yet he may, for certain reasons of justice or personal dignity, be
unwilling to put forth special efforts, aside from the invitation
itself, to secure the acceptance of it on the part of those to
whom it is offered. So God’s desires that certain men should be
saved may not be accompanied by his will to exert special
influences to save them.

These desires were meant by the phrase “revealed will” in the old
theologians; his purpose to bestow special grace, by the phrase
“secret will.” It is of the former that Paul speaks, in _1 Tim,
2:4_—“_who would have all men to be saved._” Here we have, not the
active σῶσαι, but the passive σωθῆναι. The meaning is, not that
God _purposes_ to save all men, but that he _desires_ all men to
be saved through repenting and believing the gospel. Hence God’s
revealed will, or desire, that all men should be saved, is
perfectly consistent with his secret will, or purpose, to bestow
special grace only upon a certain number (see, on _1 Tim. 2:4_,
Fairbairn’s Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles).

The sincerity of God’s call is shown, not only in the fact that
the only obstacle to compliance, on the sinner’s part, is the
sinner’s own evil will, but also in the fact that God has, at
infinite cost, made a complete external provision, upon the ground
of which “_he that will_” may “_come_” and “_take the water of
life freely_” (_Rev. 22:17_); so that God can truly say: “_What
could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in
it?_” (_Is. 5:4_). Broadus, Com. on _Mat. 6:10_—“_Thy will be
done_”—distinguishes between God’s will of purpose, of desire, and
of command. H. B. Smith, Syst. Theol., 521—“Common grace passes
over into effectual grace in proportion as the sinner yields to
the divine influence. Effectual grace is that which effects what
common grace tends to effect.” See also Studien und Kritiken,
1887:7 _sq._

(_b_) To the second, we reply that the objection, if true, would equally hold against God’s foreknowledge. The sincerity of God’s general call is no more inconsistent with his determination that some shall be permitted to reject it, than it is with foreknowledge that some will reject it.

Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:643—“Predestination concerns only the
purpose of God to render effectual, in particular cases, a call
addressed to all. A general amnesty, on certain conditions, may be
offered by a sovereign to rebellious subjects, although he knows
that through pride or malice many will refuse to accept it; and
even though, for wise reasons, he should determine not to
constrain their assent, supposing that such influence over their
minds were within his power. It is evident, from the nature of the
call, that it has nothing to do with the secret purpose of God to
grant his effectual grace to some, and not to others.... According
to the Augustinian scheme, the non‐elect have all the advantages
and opportunities of securing their salvation, which, according to
any other scheme, are granted to mankind indiscriminately.... God
designed, in its adoption, to save his own people, but he
consistently offers its benefits to all who are willing to receive
them.” See also H. B. Smith, System of Christian Theology,
515‐521.

B. Is God’s special call irresistible?

We prefer to say that this special call is efficacious,—that is, that it infallibly accomplishes its purpose of leading the sinner to the acceptance of salvation. This implies two things:

(_a_) That the operation of God is not an outward constraint upon the human will, but that it accords with the laws of our mental constitution. We reject the term “irresistible,” as implying a coercion and compulsion which is foreign to the nature of God’s working in the soul.

_Ps. 110:3_—“_Thy people are freewill‐offerings in the day of thy
power: in holy array, Out of the womb of the morning Thou hast the
dew of thy youth_”—_i. e._, youthful recruits to thy standard, as
numberless and as bright as the drops of morning dew; _Phil. 2:12,
13_—“_Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it
is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good
pleasure_”—_i. e._, the result of God’s working is our own
working. The Lutheran Formula of Concord properly condemns the
view that, before, in, and after conversion, the will only resists
the Holy Spirit: for this, it declares, is the very nature of
conversion, that out of non‐willing, God makes willing, persons
(F. C. 60, 581, 582, 673).

_Hos. 4:16_—“_Israel hath behaved himself stubbornly, like a
stubborn heifer,_” or “_or as a heifer that slideth back_” = when
the sacrificial offering is brought forward to be slain, it holds
back, settling on its haunches so that it has to be pushed and
forced before it can be brought to the altar. These are not “_the
sacrifices of God_” which are “_a broken spirit, a broken and a
contrite heart_” (_Ps. 51:17_). E. H. Johnson, Theology, 2d ed.,
250—“The N. T. nowhere declares, or even intimates, ... that the
general call of the Holy Spirit is insufficient. And furthermore,
it never states that the efficient call is irresistible.
Psychologically, to speak of irresistible influence upon the
faculty of self‐determination in man is express contradiction in
terms. No harm can come from acknowledging that we do not know
God’s unrevealed reasons for electing one individual rather than
another to eternal life.” Dr. Johnson goes on to argue that if,
without disparagement to grace, faith can be a condition of
justification, faith might also be a condition of election, and
that inasmuch as salvation is _received_ as a gift only on
condition of faith exercised, it is in _purpose_ a gift, even if
only on condition of faith foreseen. This seems to us to ignore
the abundant Scripture testimony that faith itself is God’s gift,
and therefore the initiative must be wholly with God.

(_b_) That the operation of God is the originating cause of that new disposition of the affections, and that new activity of the will, by which the sinner accepts Christ. The cause is not in the response of the will to the presentation of motives by God, nor in any mere coöperation of the will of man with the will of God, but is an almighty act of God in the will of man, by which its freedom to choose God as its end is restored and rightly exercised (John 1:12, 13). For further discussion of the subject, see, in the next section, the remarks on Regeneration, with which this efficacious call is identical.

_John 1:12, 13_—“_But as many as received him, to them gave he the
right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his
name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God._” God’s saving grace and
effectual calling are irresistible, not in the sense that they are
never resisted, but in the sense that they are never successfully
resisted. See Andrew Fuller, Works, 2:373, 513, and 3:807; Gill,
Body of Divinity, 2:121‐130; Robert Hall, Works, 3:75.

Matheson, Moments on the Mount, 128, 129—“Thy love to Him is to
his love to thee what the sunlight on the sea is to the sunshine
in the sky—a reflex, a mirror, a diffusion; thou art giving back
the glory that has been cast upon the waters. In the attraction of
thy life to him, in the cleaving of thy heart to him, in the
soaring of thy spirit to him, thou art told that he is near thee,
thou hearest the beating of his pulse for thee.”

Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 302—“In regard to our reason and to the
essence of our ideals, there is no real dualism between man and
God; but in the case of the will which constitutes the essence of
each man’s individuality, there is a real dualism, and therefore a
possible antagonism between the will of the dependent spirit, man,
and the will of the absolute and universal spirit, God. Such
_real_ duality of will, and not the _appearance_ of duality, as F.
H. Bradley put it, is the essential condition of ethics and
religion.”