The Nature of Justifying Faith

by Dr. John Gerstner

The following is taken from Dr. John Gerstner's Justification by Faith Alone: Affirming the Doctrine by Which The Church and the Individual Stands or Falls:

Eternal life depends on Christ alone — nothing, but nothing, else. Predestination will not bring it. Providence cannot produce it. It does not rest on foreknowledge, divine decrees, or even the atonement itself. Eternal life is Christ dwelling in His righteousness in the soul of the justified person. So eternal life is union with Jesus Christ. And the word for that union with Jesus Christ is faith. The sinner comes to Him, rests in Him, trusts in Him, is one with Him, abides in Him and this is life because it never, ever, ends. The united soul abides in the Vine eternally. Weakness, sin, proneness to sin never brings separation, but only the Father’s pruning, which cements the union even and ever tighter. This is the heart of the Bible. This is the heart of the gospel. This is the heart of Christianity. This is the heart of the saint. This is the heart of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those are the reasons it was the heart of the Reformation; and this is the reason the contemporary attempt of some Protestants to unite with those who do not even claim this heart of the life of Jesus Christ is to commit spiritual suicide. No lover of Jesus Christ can consent to this apostasy.

Faith is an Act but Not a Work - Faith means to trust in Jesus Christ. It is coming to Him. It is casting all your cares on Him. The old acrostic—Forsaking All I Trust Him is theologically perfectly accurate. No text of Holy Scripture tells it quite as well as Romans 4:5: “To the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.”

Notice how many different ways (7) this, Scripture teaches justification by faith alone in one verse:

1. The justified one does “not work.”
2. The justified one “trusts.”
3. The justified one trusts not in himself but in another: “God.”
4. The justified one confesses himself to be “wicked.”
5. The justified one does not have faith in his faith.
6. The justified one sees his faith only as “credited” to him.
7. The justified one sees his faith credited as “righteousness.”

The hymn does not exaggerate when it says, “NOTHING in my hands I bring.”

A woman said to me after hearing me preach on sin, “You make me feel so big (holding her fingers an inch apart).” I was shocked and replied, “Lady, that is too big; much too big, fatally big. You and I are a minus quantity, and all fallen mankind with us. Justification can only be by faith alone.”

You see that faith is an act but it is not a work—a work of merit, that is. Faith is workless, worthless. According to Roman Catholicism, those works, so far from being worthless, are worth eternal life. They entitle a person who has perfected them to nothing less than eternal heaven.

I was debating a Romish priest once on this subject, and he seemed to be reluctant to admit how good his and his fellows’ works were. The audience was largely Protestant. I guess he would have appeared to evangelicals to be bragging. I couldn’t get him to defend what he was there to defend (until I brought from my briefcase Schroeder’s Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent and read from that source that works entitled a person to heaven). It was then that he acknowledged his church’s doctrine. Then, and only then, did he admit how good Roman Catholic works are thought to be.

Romanists many times fool Protestants by their claim to teach “by grace alone” (sola gratia). And they sometimes fool themselves when they are more evangelical than a Romanist can honestly be. Romanists are saved by their works which come from grace, according to their teaching. It is not the grace but the works which come from it that save them! If a person believes that grace saves him he is a Protestant and belongs with us. He is in the wrong church if he believes the evangelical way and is not witnessing honestly. A dishonest person can never be saved, be he Protestant or Roman.

I was in an area where some Protestant ministers told me of a “Father Joe” who, they said, was the most evangelical man in the whole area. I remarked that if that were so he was also the most dishonest man in the whole area. We have many Protestants today who are claiming to be one with Romanists as fellow evangelicals. Unless such Protestants are utterly ignorant of the meaning of evangelicalism, they cannot be Christians, much less Protestants or Roman Catholics. Christians are required to “provide things honest in the sight of all men” (Romans 12: 17). Labels are supposed to tell contents. If this is true of bottles of medicine that concern only this life, how much more of the medicine of immortality — the contents of the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Evangelicalism means the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to — not infused into — the believer.

So Scripture is teaching us that the faith which saves is not a work. It has no spiritual value in itself. Strictly speaking, the true Christian church does not teach justification by faith. It teaches justification by Christ. Where does the faith come in? It is simply the uniting with, joining with, becoming one with, the Lord Jesus Christ. Being married to Christ, all that is His becomes His bride’s, the believer’s. A wife becomes a co-heir of all that belongs to her husband simply by being his wife, by her union with him in marriage. That is the fact: she is his wife. There is no virtue or merit in that. She simply possesses what now belongs to her by that relationship. Marriage is not a virtue that deserves a reward, but a relationship that brings the husband’s possessions along with him. That is the meaning of the word “reckons” or imputes or credits. The justified one “does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked.”

This is why I claim Thomas Aquinas for Protestantism. He teaches the justificatio impii, the justification of the impious or wicked, just as Paul teaches in Romans 4:5. If the wicked are ever justified, it cannot be by works or faith AS A WORK. It is justification by Jesus Christ alone. It is His righteousness, which He achieved for His people by fulfilling all righteousness, that becomes heirs as His bride.
Some Romanists will say that they too teach justification by grace—by Christ’s righteousness, in fact. But the righteousness of Christ which they claim justifies is not Christ’s own personal righteousness reckoned or credited or given or imputed to believers. Romanists refer to the righteousness which Christ works into the life of the believer or infuses into him in his own living and behavior. It is not Christ’s personal righteousness but the believer’s personal righteousness, which he performs by the grace of God.

It is Christ’s righteousness versus the believer’s own righteousness. It is Christ’s achievement versus the Christian’s achievement. It is an imputed righteousness not an infused righteousness. It is a gift of God versus an accomplishment of man. These two righteousnesses are as different as righteousnesses could conceivably be.
It does come down to the way it has been popularly stated for the last four and a half centuries: Protestantism’s salvation by faith versus Rome’s salvation by works. That is not a technically accurate way to state this vital difference, but it points to the truth. The Protestant trusts Christ to save him and the Catholic trusts Christ to help him save himself. It is faith versus works. Or, as the Spirit of God puts it in Romans 4: 16 (NIV), “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace, and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring.” It is “by faith SO THAT IT MAY BE BY grace….”

If a Romanist wants to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. “The promise comes by faith so that it may be by grace.” You can’t be saved “sola gratia” except “sola fide.” Every Roman Catholic who wants to be saved by grace must be saved by faith and join us.

And we want Romanists to be saved. We aren’t trying to win an argument but souls! How sad to see a banner raised against “faith alone” when that is the only way to be saved by grace. We agree with Roman friends -salvation is by grace. That is the reason it must be by faith. If it is a salvation based on works that come from grace, it is not based on grace but on the Christian’s works that come from grace. The works that come from grace must prove grace but they cannot be grace. They may come from, be derivative of, a consequence of, but they cannot be identified with it. Faith is merely union with Christ who is our righteousness, our grace, our salvation. 1 Corinthians 1:30, “It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus who has become for us wisdom from God,” that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption. Christ is our righteousness. Our righteousness does not result from His righteousness, it is His righteousness.

Faith is Not a Work, but it is Never without Work - Romanists have always tried to hang antinomianism on Protestantism. They seem incapable even of understanding “justification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone,” though that formula has been present since the Reformation.

If this were a true charge it would be a fatal one. If Protestantism thought that a sinner could be saved without becoming godly, it would be an absolute, damning lie. His name is “Jesus” for He saves His people from their sins, not in them. And He saves His people not only from the guilt of sin but from its dominating power as well. If a believer is not changed, he is not a believer. No one can have Christ as Savior for one moment when he is not Lord as well. We can never say too often: “Justification is by faith alone, but NOT by the faith that is alone.” Justification is by a WORKING faith.

Why does Rome continue to make that centuries-long misrepresentation of justification by faith alone? Because:

First, she knows that faith without works is dead. Second, she hears Protestantism teach justification by faith alone “apart” from works. Third, she doesn’t listen when Protestantism explains that “apart from works” means “apart from the merit of works,” not “apart from the presence of works.“ Fourth, she hears some Protestants, who also misunderstand Protestantism, teaching “easy-believism.” Fifth, she knows “easy-believism” is an utterly overwhelming argument against Protestantism (which it would be if it were true).

Let me explain, therefore, once again what the Protestant biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works means. Justification with God is apart from the merit of works. That does not mean that justification is apart from the existence of works. Christianity teaches justification apart from the merit of works. Easy-believism teaches justification apart from the existence of works. Faith without the existence of works is dead. Faith without the merit of works is antinomianism. Faith with the merit of works is legalism.

A.H. Strong (Baptist Theologian, 1836-1921) uses the analogy of a locomotive engine, its cars, and couplings. All the power to move the cars is in the locomotive. None of the power is in the couplings. Yet the locomotive, with all its power, cannot move one car without the coupling.

Justification is by Works—in One Sense - With all the clear biblicality and truth of justification by faith alone, there is still in human nature a gnawing sense of something lacking here. The Hindus call it “karma,” or the law of works. My friends say, when I get a split on the bowling alley when I should have had a strike, “You don’t live right.” Deuteronomy says, “Your sins will find you out.” Hegel said that the Geschichte (history) of the world is the Gericht (judgment) of the world. The mills of the gods grind slowly but they grind exceedingly fine.

In other words, justification by faith alone seems to violate the built-in moral perception that each person must pay for his own bad deeds. He cannot be let off without penalty. God is not a respecter of persons. A moral being does not play favorites. Justice is blind.

So far is justification by faith alone from violating this principle that it honors it more than damnation itself. Christian heaven is gained in a way more just than what Jonathan Edwards calls “The justice of God in the damnation of the wicked.”
This is implied in what has already been said about the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. But let me be more explicit. Jesus Christ was punished in the elect sinner’s stead. The full wrath of God deserved by the sinner was poured out in full on the sinner’s Substitute. And that punishment undergone by the sinner in his substitute was more than the sinner would have suffered by an eternity in hell, for the sinner’s Substitute was no less than the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily (Colossians 2:9). God cannot die in His own infinite, spiritual, unchangeable, eternal nature, but He could and did die in the real human nature to which He united Himself for the very purpose of suffering and dying so that His people need never suffer ever at the hand of a holy and just God. Surely, mercy and truth kissed each other in perfect justice.

Thus, the sinner was punished. No sinner ever escapes the justice of God—least of all those for whom Jesus Christ suffered, bled, and died. Christ descended into hell on the cross. Because Christ descended into hell, those for whom He died ascend into heaven. They went to hell with Him and they will go to heaven with Him. That is the perfect justice of pure grace.

Theologians often say that God shows His justice in hell and His mercy in heaven. But in so doing He shows more justice in heaven than in very hell. Hell must be eternal because its victims never can suffer sufficiently in a temporal hell. Heaven must be eternal because the redeemed can never receive the blessings their Savior has purchased for them in a temporal (of, say, only trillions of years) heaven. Edwards has poignantly written in an unpublished sermon on Mark 9:44: “As sure as God is true, there will absolutely be no end to the miseries of hell.” He could add: As surely as God is true, there will absolutely be no end to the joys of heaven.
Jesus earned all this. He paid for it with His blood. All Christians can say with the chief of saints, who called himself the chief of sinners (Paul), “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20)

Justification is ultimately by works - the works of Jesus Christ! - They are received by the justified sinner as his own works. Christ justified His people by His works as their works; works done by them in their Substitute.

Christ justified Himself by His works. He was justified (or vindicated) by the Spirit, according to 1 Timothy 3:16. Probably the best translation of Romans 4:25 is: “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for (rather, “because of”) our justification.” Christ’s raising or resurrection showed that His redemption was successful. Christ “through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 1:4)

Resurrection would not normally prove one to be the Son of God. All the dead are going to be resurrected at the last day of judgment. But Christ’s rising from death proved that He was the divine Savior He claimed to be and that His atonement had accomplished justification for those for whom He died. This was the New Covenant in His very blood shed for the remission of sins He had taken on Himself. Fulfilling all righteousness, He thus justified Himself and His people. Therefore, He was resurrected from death and ascended in glory for Himself and His people whom He brought in His train as He led captivity captive to heaven. Because of the justification of the Christians, the Lord Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, victor o’er the grave-His grave and His people’s. Hallelujah! Amen and Amen! Justification is by works-the works of Jesus Christ! and His people’s too (by faith)!

After Justification, the Works of Faith Merit Reward - “Leap for joy,” the Lord Jesus says, “for great is your reward in heaven.” (Luke 6:23) So, there are going to be rewards—great rewards for the works of faith.

Are the Romanists right after all? Rewards for works? Salvation earned by the Christian’s deeds?

There can be no doubt that the Lord Jesus Christ teaches rewards for faith-works. Nor can there be any doubt that it is not the Roman doctrine of justification by works, and is the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. But it takes some explaining.

First, rewards for works is not the Roman doctrine of justification by works. The Christian’s works are so imperfect that they could never merit justification, which they couldn’t merit if they were perfect.

Second, rewards in heaven for imperfect works on earth is perfectly compatible with the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works. Imperfect works (or even perfect works) could never remit guilt or earn justification. But imperfect works can merit the rewards in heaven that the Lord Jesus Christ says they will receive. Even a cup of cold water given in Jesus’ name will have its eternal reward — deservedly! Why deservedly?

Christians will receive rewards in heaven for everyone of their imperfect “good” works for a very good reason. Those post-justification good works are not necessary for heaven because Jesus Christ purchased heaven for those in Him by faith. The works are necessary to prove the genuineness of professed faith but they are not necessary for earning heaven. They are real “works of supererogation,” if you wish. Anyone who goes to heaven does so for the merit of Christ’s work alone, apart from any merit in any and all of his own works of obedience. If faith could exist apart from works, which it cannot, the believer could go to heaven without ever doing one good work. As it is, he goes to heaven without one iota of merit in anything and everything he does. But every post-justification good work he ever does will merit, deserve, and receive its reward in heaven.

You protest, “But post-justification works have sin in them, and therefore cannot merit any reward.” You forget that their guilt of sin has been removed. Moreover, do you dare impugn the justice of God by saying that He would “reward” what did not deserve reward? (P.S. I confess my own and Augustine’s past error in using the oxymoron: “rewards of grace.”)

In conclusion, faith, as union with Christ, possesses Christ’s righteousness which justifies perfectly forever. Being true faith, it is inseparable from works which contribute zero to justification. But being unnecessary for heaven (which Christ’s merit alone purchases), works are meritorious and the Christian is now to leap for joy because everyone of his weakest of works will deservedly receive an everlasting reward in heaven. Reader, I urge you to seek God for faith and, if and when God finds you, to abound in the works of the Lord!

John H. Gerstner (1914-1996) was Professor of Church History at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and an authority on the life and theology of Jonathan Edwards. He earned both a Master of Divinity degree and a Master of Theology degree from Westminster Theological Seminary. He earned his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Harvard University in 1945. He pastored several churches before accepting a professorship at Pittsburgh-Xenia theological Seminary, where he taught church history for over 30 years. He was a visiting professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Ill., and adjunct professor at Knox theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. The author of many books and articles, his magnum opus is the three volume set, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards.

Remember

04.22.10
J.A. Matteson

"Because You have been my help, therefore in the shadow of Your wings I will rejoice." Psalms 63:7

The capacity to remember the Lord’s grace in days past informs our perspective regarding present circumstances. The tendency of the fallen nature is to forget the mercies of the Lord that have sustained and nurtured our sanctification thus far. If it was not for the grace of the Lord we would be consumed in an instant by unrelenting terrors and innumerable perils.

In this delightful Psalm David reflects back on the Lord’s goodness in the midst of present distress, carefully chronicling in his mind past evidences of divine blessing. The resultant outcome is joy in the midst of present adversity, a joy firmly established by a gift of God; viz., the grace of a heavenly perspective. David chooses his words thoughtfully when he proclaims, “…You have been my help…” for “have been” (ἐγενήθης) in the Septuagint is rendered from the aorist past tense indicating a perpetual or unending activity; he is not implying a single past act of divine protection in isolation from all others. What David is asserting is that the protective grace of the Lord has been with him moment by moment, day by day, year by year, and it is only by means of this grace that he stands in the present and has any hope of doing so in the next moment. And is this not what the Apostle states when he exclaims?, “there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him” (1 Cor. 8:6).

Key to establishing and maintaining joy in the present is comprehension the Lord’s providence over our lives, expressed by David as protection “in the shadow of Your wings.” To this end David, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, understood a three-fold aspect of divine oversight of his life. The first is divine preservation; that is, David realized that the Lord possesses within Himself the power to preserve that which He created (in this case, David’s life). Secondly, he perceived that in some way the Lord worked concurrently (in parallel fashion) with his will and decisions to bring this preservation about. Third, David maintained an eschatological perspective of the present and future that were informed by the promises and character of the God. And this divine providence by which “we exist” is known in nature by things physical or invisible, so that we may with confidence look to Him who is the Author and Sustainer of “all things.”

While in the mist of trial at the hands of wicked Saul who sought his life, David perceived God’s hand of protection, deliverance, and sanctification over his life. The Lord often accomplishes His providential plans through the means of secondary causes, whether good or evil, Saul being a prime example of a secondary cause. Pharaoh serves as another reminder of a secondary cause where the concurrent aspect of divine providence, God’s decree, and human responsibility are wed together, “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH" (Rom. 9:17). Into this mystery—the connection between the eternal decrees of God and human responsibility—we approach cautiously.

While some are inclined to conclude God’s foreknowledge in the case of Pharaoh is such that God peered down the corridor of time to discover what the man would do, and based on what He saw (Pharaoh’s wicked acts) God “raised him up” for destruction. But is that what the Word of God teaches regarding God’s divine decrees and providence? For that assessment collides head-on with multiple alternate Scripture passages which clearly assert that when it comes to the Lord’s foreknowledge, He sees the future clearly because He decrees or ordains what the future will be in accordance to His governance aspect of providence; that is, God is actively directing redemptive history to His appointed ends for His purposes and glory.

In this regard Jude offers clarity, “These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 1:12-13), or, their destruction was decreed from eternity past without regard to future acts by them! Why? The Apostle enlightens us, “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?” (Rom. 9:22).

Pilgrim, coming back full circle to David, it was this awareness of God’s decrees and providence that brought joy to his heart. For he by the grace of the Holy Spirit was able to apprehend the glorious mysteries of God, and he understood that no wicked scheme could prevail against him, and that in the final analysis every aspect of his life was under the scrutiny of the Lord for his good and His glory. David lived under the authority of a wicked king who sought his life, but in that reality he continually remembered back to the Lord’s past goodness in preserving his life in order that He might bring to pass all that he had decreed for the youngest son of Jesse.

Once again, beloved, let your heart be filled with joy and peace in the knowledge that the times and seasons of your life are in the faithful hands of the Lord, “who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen” (Jude 24-25). Remember His past goodness to draw confidence and strength in the present.

Copyright (c) 2010 Immutable Word Ministries ("...the word of our God stands forever." Isa. 40:8).

The Analogy of Faith--Does Scripture Interpret Scripture?

By Thomas A. Howe

This article first appeared in the Practical Hermeneutics column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 29, number 2 (2006).

For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

There is a principle of biblical interpretation called the analogy of faith that is popularly understood to mean “Scripture interprets Scripture,” or “Scripture interprets itself.” This is actually a misunderstanding. Not every Scripture is interpreted by another Scripture. For example, there is no other Scripture that gives us the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29 (“Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?”1). In fact, no other Scripture even mentions baptism for the dead. There are, however, other Scriptures regarding salvation and death that eliminate some interpretations of this passage. We know, for example, that it cannot mean that vicarious baptism can save the souls of those who are already dead, because this interpretation contradicts the clear statement in Hebrews 9:27 that after death comes judgment.

The analogy of faith is not the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, but that all Scripture is in agreement and will not contradict itself. It assumes the unity and harmony of teaching throughout the Bible. In other words, when multiple passages say something about a topic (either explicitly or implicitly), then what those passages say about that topic will be consistent and will not be contradictory. For example, Psalm 34:15 speaks of God having eyes and ears, whereas John 4:24 says God is spirit. The analogy of faith means that these passages are not contradictory, as they might appear at first glance. We can reconcile them when we recognize that in Psalm 34:15 the author is using a figure of speech and is not asserting that God has literal, physical eyes and ears. He is asserting, rather, that God watches over His people and hears their cries for help; whereas in John 4:24 Jesus is asserting that God is not a physical being, therefore, the physical location of His worshipers is not what is most important to Him. The analogy of faith forces us to dig further to understand how passages that appear to be contradictory should be understood.

This brings us to another aspect of the analogy of faith, that is, that we should interpret unclear passages in light of clear passages, not the other way around. Milton Terry says the expression analogy of faith “denotes that general harmony of fundamental doctrine which pervades the entire Scriptures.…No single statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages. The obscure texts must be interpreted in the light of those which are plain and positive.”2 When a particular passage is unclear to us, we can and should go to other passages that address the same topic more clearly in order to help us understand the unclear passage.

The Unclear Passage. Let’s consider Jesus’ statement in John 10:24–36 as example of how this principle works. The Jews had encircled Jesus to confront Him with their demand, “How long will you continue to annoy us? If You Yourself are the Christ, speak to us openly!” (v. 24). Jesus had spoken to them, of course, but they did not believe Him. They were not interested in whether Jesus was really the Christ (Messiah); they just wanted Him to make some statement they could use to accuse Him. When Jesus told them “I and the Father are one” (v. 30), they understood that to be a claim that He is God: “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (v. 33). In what appears to be a defense of His assertion, Jesus said, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods, to whom the Word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (vv. 34–36).

Many commentators have taken Jesus’ statement to be a quote from Psalm 82:6: “I said ‘you are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.’” Those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ argue that He was not claiming to be God, that is, divine in nature, but only claiming to be a god, a designation that was used of mere humans in Psalm 82. Let’s take a look at this psalm and some related passages to see if they shed any light on the meaning of the passage in John.

The Clear Passages. The historical context of Psalm 82 is in dispute, but the meaning seems to be clear. The psalm begins with the declaration that God stands in the midst of “the congregation of God [Heb. El].” This is a reference to God’s people, Israel. The psalm then says that God judges in the midst of “gods.” The Hebrew word here is Elohim. This is a reference to the rulers of Israel who were to judge the people. Jesus’ statement sounds similar to Psalm 82:6, but if He is referring to this verse, why does He ask, “Has it not been written in your Law”? The Psalms are not part of the Old Testament Law.

If you look closely at Psalm 82:6, you will notice that the reference is actually to a statement that God made elsewhere: “I said, ‘you are gods [Elohim].’” There are two passages in Exodus (which is part of the Law) in which the judges of Israel are referred to as gods (Elohim): “Then his master shall bring him unto the judges [Elohim]…and he shall serve him for ever” (Exod. 21:6); “Then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges [Elohim], to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor’s property. For every breach of trust…both parties shall come before the judges [Elohim]; he whom the judges [Elohim] condemn shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exod. 22:8–9).

The judges of Israel were supposed to be the representatives of God to the people. They were to judge them with righteous judgment (see Deut. 1:16; 16:18). They stood in the place of God to execute His justice; to the people, they were gods. (A similar expression was used with reference to Moses. God told Moses, “See, I make you God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet” [Exod. 7:1]. Since Moses would be God’s representative, he would be God to Pharaoh.) There was a problem, however, which the psalmist addresses in Psalm 82. He asks, “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?” (v. 2). The judges of Israel were not judging with righteous judgment. They sat in the judgment seat as God’s instruments of justice, but they had perverted justice. Their exalted position, however, would not protect them from God’s judgment. The psalmist says that even though they were called gods, they would “die like men and fall like one of the princes” (v. 7).

Understanding Jesus’ Response. These Old Testament passages give us the background to understand the confrontation between Jesus and the leaders of Israel. In John 7:24, Jesus already had pointed out that they were judging according to appearance rather than righteousness; and in 8:15, He accused them of judging according to the flesh. Then, in chapter 10, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and the Pharisees accused Him of blasphemy, Jesus responded by recalling a similar situation where a divine title was ascribed to the judges of Israel.

Jesus said that since the judges of old who only received the Word of God were called gods because they were the representatives of God, it is proper and right that He who is the Word of God should be recognized as the Son of God because He is the very presence of God. If it was fitting to call the judges of Israel gods because of the work they were appointed by God to do, then it is even more fitting to call Jesus the Son of God because of the works that He was set apart and sent by God to do. Jesus took upon Himself the designation Son of God because He did the very works of God: “If I am not doing the works of My Father, do not believe Me. But if I am doing them, and you do not believe Me, then believe the works in order that you might know and understand that the Father is in Me and I in the Father” (vv. 37–38). The works of Jesus are key. By them the Pharisees should have recognized Jesus to be the Son of God; instead, they judged Him to be a blasphemer.

These Old Testament passages not only help us to interpret the difficult passage in John 10 correctly, but also to disqualify the interpretation that Jesus was claiming merely to be a god, a representative of God, like the judges. They show us that the term gods (Elohim), as applied to the judges, meant that they represented deity, not that they were deity. The Jews understood the title Son of God, however, to designate deity (other clear passages about the Son of God also confirm this); to claim this title was to claim to be God, which is why they accused Jesus of blasphemy. Jesus’ response to their accusation was not that He was claiming merely to be a representative of God like the judges, which isn’t blasphemous, but that His works demonstrated that He really was the Son of God or God. This explains why the Jews wanted to seize Jesus even after hearing His response; they correctly understood Him, but they still refused to believe that He was the Son of God.

NOTES
1. All Bible quotations are the author’s translation.
2. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, vol. 2, Library of Biblical and Theological Literature, ed. George R. Crooks and John F. Hurst (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), 579.

The Crucial Test

04.15.10
J.A. Matteson

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!”
2 Corinthians 13:5

Many are the boasts by men who profess an allegiance to the Savior, yet the outward testimony of their lives runs destructively head-long into their claim to piety. Observing this blatant and perpetual contradiction between profession and behavior the Apostle concludes, “They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed” (Tit. 1:6).

Spiritually speaking there are perhaps four groups of people on the earth: those who are lost and know it, those who are saved but fear they may be lost, those who are saved and know it, and those who are lost but think they are saved. The concern of the Apostle is for individuals who may be in the last group. He therefore admonishes all to “test” (πειάζω) themselves or “put to the test” individual profession against the multiple indicators contained in scripture as to the character of one who is truly born again. The Apostle applies the aorist tense while applying the word “test” to indicate the self examination is intended to be ongoing throughout ones pilgrimage in order to guard against self-deception. But he presses further still by insisting that his audience personally “examine” (δοκιμάζετε) their individual behavior or character in relation to that of Jesus Christ.

The term Christian was originally employed to identify those following in the Way of Jesus Christ. In essence it carried with it the connotation of being a “little Christ” and was likely first used at Antioch by unbelievers with a terse derisive implication. The sense of the examination the Apostle’s presents is to prove or demonstrate by behavior Christ-like conduct, and in so doing demonstrate genuine faith. A mere verbal profession of faith is insufficient—talk is cheap—and it must be accompanied by corresponding works to the glory of God; to this end the Apostle James speaks concisely, “But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works” (Jas. 2:18). And it is to this end the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is established and perfected in the life of the regenerated, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). While justification is by faith alone, justifying faith is never alone and is always accompanied by good works.

More specifically, let us examine the fruit of the Spirit within the child of God, fruit which can be observed and nurtured so that an increasing harvest of good fruit may be produced. Pilgrim, are you continuing to trust in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary wholly and solely for your salvation?, for consider what the Scripture says, “but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house--whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.” Beloved, note the promise is a conditional one, “if”; a distinguishing mark of genuine faith is its permanence into eternity. Anyone professing Christ who later renounce Him possessed a counterfeit faith and were never born from above, these are the seed on the rocky places, seed sewn in the midst of thorns and thistles, seed which in due season is rendered useless.

Genuine faith also produces an intense desire to obey God and hate sin, “Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter” (Matt. 7:21). A regenerate heart will also grow in holiness, mortifying the flesh daily, “Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord”, also, “And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure” (Heb. 12:14, 1 Jn. 3:3). Accompanying these works of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control (Gal. 5:22-23).

In addition the child of God loves the children of God and desires to be in their company, “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death” (1 Jn. 3:14). At the same time genuine believers will have a positive impact on others, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16), these also adhere to the Apostle’s teaching, hungering for the Word of Life and its application to their lives, “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship….” (Acts 2:42).

Confirming all of these things within the heart of genuine believers is the Holy Spirit Himself who testifies with their spirits that they are children of God, “For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:15-16).

Beloved, to the extent that these characteristics of the Spirit’s fruit depict your walk with the Lord and are steadily increasing, you are doing well. But woe to the professor whose life is utterly barren of these marks of regeneration, who only has his verbal profession of Christ with perhaps his church membership, baptism certificate, and tithing record, for that man is one who believes himself to be saved when he is most assuredly lost and headed toward a certain damnation unless he hears with his ears, repents with his heart, cries out with his lips, and falls at the foot of the cross in desperation. Most assuredly, the grace and mercy of the Savior will by no means caste away the humble and contrite in spirit, but will exalt him, to the praise and glory of Christ Jesus our Lord.

Copyright (c) 2010 Immutable Word Ministries ("...the word of our God stands forever." Isa. 40:8).

Reprobation

From A.W. Pink's book: THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

Chapter 5
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION

"Behold therefore the goodness and the severity of God"
Romans. 11:22

In the last chapter when treating of the Sovereignty of God the Father in Salvation, we examined seven passages which represent Him as making a choice from among the children of men, and predestinating certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son. The thoughtful reader will naturally ask, And what of those who were not "ordained to eternal life?" The answer which is usually returned to this question, even by those who profess to believe what the Scriptures teach concerning God’s sovereignty, is, that God passes by the non-elect, leaves them alone to go their own way, and in the end casts them into the Lake of Fire because they refused His way, and rejected the Savior of His providing. But this is only a part of the truth; the other part—that which is most offensive to the carnal mind—is either ignored or denied.

In view of the awful solemnity of the subject here before us, in view of the fact that today almost all—even those who profess to be Calvinists—reject and repudiate this doctrine, and in view of the fact that this is one of the points in our book which is calculated to raise the most controversy, we feel that an extended inquiry into this aspect of God’s Truth is demanded. That this branch of the subject of God’s sovereignty is profoundly mysterious we freely allow, yet, that is no reason why we should reject it. The trouble is that, nowadays, there are so many who receive the testimony of God only so far as they can satisfactorily account for all the reasons and grounds of His conduct, which means they will accept nothing but that which can be measured in the petty scales of their own limited capacities.

Stating it in its baldest form the point now to be considered is, Has God fore-ordained certain ones to damnation? That many will be eternally damned is clear from Scripture, that each one will be judged according to his works and reap as he has sown, and that in consequence his "damnation is just" (Rom. 3:8), is equally sure, and that God decreed that the non-elect should choose the course they follow we now undertake to prove.

From what has been before us in the previous chapter concerning the election of some to salvation, it would unavoidably follow, even if Scripture had been silent upon it, that there must be a rejection of others. Every choice, evidently and necessarily implies a refusal, for where there is no leaving out there can be no choice. If there be some whom God has elected unto salvation (2 Thes. 2:13), there must be others who are not elected unto salvation. If there are some that the Father gave to Christ (John 6:37), there must be others whom He did not give unto Christ. If there are some whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of Life (Rev. 21:27), there must be others whose names are not written there. That this is the case we shall fully prove below.

Now all will acknowledge that from the foundation of the world God certainly fore-knew and fore-saw who would and who would not receive Christ as their Savior, therefore in giving being and birth to those He knew would reject Christ, He necessarily created them unto damnation. All that can be said in reply to this is, No, while God did foreknow these ones would reject Christ, yet He did not decree that they should. But this is a begging of the real question at issue. God had a definite reason why He created men, a specific purpose why He created this and that individual, and in view of the eternal destination of His creatures, He purposed either that this one should spend eternity in Heaven or that this one should spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. If then He foresaw that in creating a certain person that that person would despise and reject the Savior, yet knowing this beforehand He, nevertheless, brought that person into existence, then it is clear He designed and ordained that that person should be eternally lost. Again; faith is God’s gift, and the purpose to give it only to some, involves the purpose not to give it to others. Without faith there is no salvation—"He that believeth not shall be damned"— hence if there were some of Adam’s descendants to whom He purposed not to give faith, it must be because He ordained that they should be damned.

Not only is there no escape from these conclusions, but history confirms them. Before the Divine Incarnation, for almost two thousand years, the vast majority of mankind were left destitute of even the external means of grace, being favored with no preaching of God’s Word and with no written revelation of His will. For many long centuries Israel was the only nation to whom the Deity vouchsafed any special discovery of Himself—"Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways" (Acts 14:16)—"You only (Israel) have I known of all the families of the earth" (Amos 3:2). Consequently, as all other nations were deprived of the preaching of God’s Word, they were strangers to the faith that cometh thereby (Rom. 10:17). These nations were not only ignorant of God Himself, but of the way to please Him, of the true manner of acceptance with Him, and the means of arriving at the everlasting enjoyment of Himself.

Now if God had willed their salvation, would He not have vouchsafed them the means of salvation? Would He not have given them all things necessary to that end? But it is an undeniable matter of fact that He did not. If, then, Deity can, consistently, with His justice, mercy, and benevolence, deny to some the means of grace, and shut them up in gross darkness and unbelief (because of the sins of their forefathers, generations before), why should it be deemed incompatible with His perfections to exclude some persons, many, from grace itself, and from that eternal life which is connected with it? seeing that He is Lord and sovereign Disposer both of the end to which the means lead, and the means which lead to that end?

Coming down to our own day, and to those in our own country—leaving out the almost innumerable crowds of unevangelized heathen—is it not evident that there are many living in lands where the Gospel is preached, lands which are full of churches, who die strangers to God and His holiness? True, the means of grace were close to their hand, but many of them knew it not. Thousands are born into homes where they are taught from infancy to regard all Christians as hypocrites and preachers as arch-humbugs. Others, are instructed from the cradle in Roman Catholicism, and are trained to regard Evangelical Christianity as deadly heresy, and the Bible as a book highly dangerous for them to read. Others, reared in "Christian Science" families, know no more of the true Gospel of Christ than do the unevangelized heathen. The great majority of these die in utter ignorance of the Way of Peace. Now are we not obliged to conclude that it was not God’s will to communicate grace to them? Had His will been otherwise, would He not have actually communicated His grace to them? If, then, it was the will of God, in time, to refuse to them His grace, it must have been His will from all eternity, since His will is, as Himself, the same yesterday, and today and forever. Let it not be forgotten that God’s providences are but the manifestations of His decrees: what God does in time is only what He purposed in eternity—His own will being the alone cause of all His acts and works. Therefore from His actually leaving some men in final impenitency and unbelief we assuredly gather it was His everlasting determination so to do; and consequently that He reprobated some from before the foundation of the world.

In the Westminster Confession it is said, "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably foreordain whatsoever comes to pass". The late Mr. F. W. Grant—a most careful and cautious student and writer—commenting on these words said: "It is perfectly, divinely true, that God hath ordained for His own glory whatsoever comes to pass." Now if these statements are true, is not the doctrine of Reprobation established by them? What, in human history, is the one thing which does come to pass every day? What, but that men and women die, pass out of this world into a hopeless eternity, an eternity of suffering and woe. If then God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass then He must have decreed that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved to suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire. Admitting the general premise, is not the specific conclusion inevitable?

In reply to the preceding paragraphs the reader may say, All this is simply reasoning, logical no doubt, but yet mere inferences. Very well, we will now point out that in addition to the above conclusions there are many passages in Holy Writ, which are most clear and definite in their teaching on this solemn subject; passages which are too plain to be misunderstood and too strong to be evaded. The marvel is that so many good men have denied their undeniable affirmations.

"Joshua made war a long time with all those kings. There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that He might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses" (Josh. 11:18-20). What could be plainer than this? Here was a large number of Canaanites whose hearts the Lord hardened, whom He had purposed to utterly destroy, to whom He showed "no favor". Granted that they were wicked, immoral, idolatrous; were they any worse than the immoral, idolatrous cannibals of the South Sea Islands (and many other places), to whom God gave the Gospel through John G. Paton! Assuredly not. Then why did not Jehovah command Israel to teach the Canaanites His laws and instruct them concerning sacrifices to the true God? Plainly, because He had marked them out for destruction, and if so, that from all eternity.

"The Lord hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Prov. 16:4). That the Lord made all, perhaps every reader of this book will allow: that He made all for Himself is not so widely believed. That God made us, not for our own sakes, but for Himself; not for our own happiness, but for His glory; is, nevertheless, repeatedly affirmed in Scripture—Revelation 4:11. But Proverbs 16:4 goes even farther: it expressly declares that the Lord made the wicked for the Day of Evil: that was His design in giving them being. But why? Does not Romans 9:17 tell us, "For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth"! God has made the wicked that, at the end, He may demonstrate "His power"—demonstrate it by showing what an easy matter it is for Him to subdue the stoutest rebel and to overthrow His mightiest enemy.

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. 7:23). In the previous chapter it has been shown that, the words "know" and "foreknowledge" when applied to God in the Scriptures, have reference not simply to His prescience (i.e. His bare knowledge beforehand), but to His knowledge of approbation. When God said to Israel, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" (Amos 3:2), it is evident that He meant, "You only had I any favorable regard to." When we read in Romans 11:2 "God hath not cast away His people (Israel) whom He foreknew," it is obvious that what was signified is, "God has not finally rejected that people whom He has chosen as the objects of His love—cf. Deuteronomy 7:7, 8. In the same way (and it is the only possible way) are we to understand Matthew 7:23. In the Day of Judgment the Lord will say unto many, "I never knew you". Note, it is more than simply "I know you not". His solemn declaration will be, "I never knew you"—you were never the objects of My approbation. Contrast this with "I know (love) My sheep, and am known (loved) of Mine" (John 10:14). The "sheep", His elect, the "few", He does "know"; but the reprobate, the non-elect, the "many" He knows not—no, not even before the foundation of the world did He know them—He "NEVER" knew them!

In Romans 9 the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in its application to both the elect and the reprobate is treated of at length. A detailed exposition of this important chapter would be beyond our present scope; all that we can essay is to dwell upon the part of it which most clearly bears upon the aspect of the subject which we are now considering.

Verse 17: "For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth." These words refer us back to verses 13 and 14. In verse 13 God’s love to Jacob and His hatred to Esau are declared. In verse 14 it is asked "Is there unrighteousness with God?" and here in verse 17 the apostle continues his reply to the objection. We cannot do better now than quote from Calvin’s comments upon this verse. "There are here two things to be considered,—the predestination of Pharaoh to ruin, which is to be referred to the past and yet the hidden counsel of God,—and then, the design of this, which was to make known the name of God. As many interpreters, striving to modify this passage, pervert it, we must first observe, that for the word ‘I have raised thee up’, or stirred up, in the Hebrew is, ‘I have appointed’, by which it appears, that God, designing to show that the contumacy of Pharaoh would not prevent Him to deliver His people, not only affirms that his fury had been foreseen by Him, and that He had prepared means for restraining it, but that He had also thus designedly ordained it and indeed for this end,—that he might exhibit a more illustrious evidence of His own power." It will be observed that Calvin gives as the force of the Hebrew word which Paul renders "For this purpose have I raised thee up,"—"I have appointed". As this is the word on which the doctrine and argument of the verse turns we would further point out that in making this quotation from Exodus 9:16 the apostle significantly departs from the Septuagint—the version then in common use, and from which he most frequently quotes—and substitutes a clause for the first that is given by the Septuagint: instead of "On this account thou hast been preserved", he gives "For this very end have I raised thee up"!

But we must now consider in more detail the case of Pharaoh which sums up in concrete example the great controversy between man and his Maker. "For now I will stretch out My hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee My power; and that My name may be declared throughout all the earth" (Ex. 9:15, 16). Upon these words we offer the following comments:

First, we know from Exodus 14 and 15 that Pharaoh was "cut off", that he was cut off by God, that he was cut off in the very midst of his wickedness, that he was cut off not by sickness nor by the infirmities which are incident to old age, nor by what men term an accident, but cut off by the immediate hand of God in judgment.

Second, it is clear that God raised up Pharaoh for this very end—to "cut him off," which in the language of the New Testament means "destroyed." God never does anything without a previous design. In giving him being, in preserving him through infancy and childhood, in raising him to the throne of Egypt, God had one end in view. That such was God’s purpose is clear from His words to Moses before he went down to Egypt, to demand of Pharaoh that Jehovah’s people should be allowed to go a three days’ journey into the wilderness to worship Him—"And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all these wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go" (Ex. 4:21). But not only so, God’s design and purpose was declared long before this. Four hundred years previously God had said to Abraham, "Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge" (Gen. 15:13, 14). From these words it is evident (a nation and its king being looked at as one in the O. T.) that God’s purpose was formed long before He gave Pharaoh being.

Third, an examination of God’s dealings with Pharaoh makes it clear that Egypt’s king was indeed a "vessel of wrath fitted to destruction." Placed on Egypt’s throne, with the reins of government in his hands, he sat as head of the nation which occupied the first rank among the peoples of the world. There was no other monarch on earth able to control or dictate to Pharaoh. To such a dizzy height did God raise this reprobate, and such a course was a natural and necessary step to prepare him for his final fate, for it is a Divine axiom that "pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall." Further,—and this is deeply important to note and highly significant—God removed from Pharaoh the one outward restraint which was calculated to act as a check upon him. The bestowing upon Pharaoh of the unlimited powers of a king was setting him above all legal influence and control. But besides this, God removed Moses from his presence and kingdom. Had Moses, who not only was skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians but also had been reared in Pharaoh’s household, been suffered to remain in close proximity to the throne, there can be no doubt but that his example and influence had been a powerful check upon the king’s wickedness and tyranny. This, though not the only cause, was plainly one reason why God sent Moses into Midian, for it was during his absence that Egypt’s inhuman king framed his most cruel edicts. God designed, by removing this restraint, to give Pharaoh full opportunity to fill up the full measure of his sins, and ripen himself for his fully-deserved but predestined ruin.

Fourth, God "hardened" his heart as He declared He would (Ex. 4:21). This is in full accord with the declarations of Holy Scripture—"The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord" (Prov. 16:1); "The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water, He turneth it whithersoever He will" (Prov. 21:1). Like all other kings, Pharaoh’s heart was in the hand of the Lord; and God had both the right and the power to turn it whithersoever He pleased. And it pleased Him to turn it against all good. God determined to hinder Pharaoh from granting his request through Moses to let Israel go, until He had fully prepared him for his final overthrow, and because nothing short of this would fully fit him, God hardened his heart.

Finally, it is worthy of careful consideration to note how the vindication of God in His dealings with Pharaoh has been fully attested. Most remarkable it is to discover that we have Pharaoh’s own testimony in favor of God and against himself! In Exodus 9:15 and 16 we learn how God had told Pharaoh for what purpose He had raised him up, and in verse 27 of the same chapter we are told that Pharaoh said, "I have sinned this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked." Mark that this was said by Pharaoh after he knew that God had raised him up in order to "cut him off", after his severe judgments had been sent upon him, after he had hardened his own heart. By this time Pharaoh was fairly ripened for judgment, and fully prepared to decide whether God had injured him, or whether he had sought to injure God; and he fully acknowledges that he had "sinned" and that God was "righteous". Again; we have the witness of Moses who was fully acquainted with God’s conduct toward Pharaoh. He had heard at the beginning what was God’s design in connection with Pharaoh; he had witnessed God’s dealings with him; he had observed his "long-sufferance" toward this vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and at last he had beheld him cut off in Divine judgment at the Red Sea. How then was Moses impressed?

Does he raise the cry of injustice? Does he dare to charge God with unrighteousness? Far from it. Instead, he says, "Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods? "Who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders!" (Ex. 15:11).

Was Moses moved by a vindictive spirit as he saw Israel’s arch-enemy "cut off" by the waters of the Red Sea? Surely not. But to remove forever all doubt upon this score, it remains to be pointed out how that saints in heaven, after they have witnessed the sore judgments of God, join in singing "the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb saying, Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of Nations" (Rev. 15:3). Here then is the climax, and the full and final vindication of God’s dealings with Pharaoh. Saints in heaven join in singing the Song of Moses, in which that servant of God celebrated Jehovah’s praise in overthrowing Pharaoh and his hosts, declaring that in so acting God was not unrighteous but just and true. We must believe, therefore, that the Judge of all the earth did right in creating and destroying this vessel of wrath, Pharaoh.

The case of Pharaoh establishes the principle and illustrates the doctrine of Reprobation. If God actually reprobated Pharaoh, we may justly conclude that He reprobates all others whom He did not predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son. This inference the apostle Paul manifestly draws from the fate of Pharaoh, for in Romans 9, after referring to God’s purpose in raising up Pharaoh, he continues, "therefore". The case of Pharaoh is introduced to prove the doctrine of Reprobation as the counterpart of the doctrine of Election. In conclusion, we would say that in forming Pharaoh God displayed neither justice nor injustice, but only His bare sovereignty. As the potter is sovereign in forming vessels, so God is sovereign in forming moral agents.

Verse 18: "Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth". The "therefore" announces the general conclusion which the apostle draws from all he had said in the three preceding verses in denying that God was unrighteous in loving Jacob and hating Esau, and specifically it applies the principle exemplified in God’s dealings with Pharaoh. It traces everything back to the sovereign will of the Creator. He loves one and hates another, He exercises mercy toward some and hardens others, without reference to anything save His own sovereign will.

That which is most repellant to the carnal mind in the above verse is the reference to hardening—"Whom He will He hardeneth"— and it is just here that so many commentators and expositors have adulterated the truth. The most common view is that the apostle is speaking of nothing more than judicial hardening, i.e., a forsaking by God because these subjects of His displeasure had first rejected His truth and forsaken Him. Those who contend for this interpretation appeal to such scriptures as Romans 1:19-26—"God gave them up", that is (see context) those who "knew God" yet glorified Him not as God (v. 21). Appeal is also made to 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. But it is to be noted that the word "harden" does not occur in either of these passages. But further. We submit that Romans 9:18 has no reference whatever to judicial "hardening". The apostle is not there speaking of those who had already turned their backs on God’s truth, but instead, he is dealing with God’s sovereignty, God’s sovereignty as seen not only in showing mercy to whom He wills, but also in hardening whom He pleases. The exact words are "Whom He will"—not "all who have rejected His truth"—"He hardeneth", and this, coming immediately after the mention of Pharaoh, clearly fixes their meaning. The case of Pharaoh is plain enough, though man by his glosses has done his best to hide the truth.

Verse 18: "Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth". This affirmation of God’s sovereign "hardening" of sinners’ hearts—in contradistinction from judicial hardening—is not alone. Mark the language of John 12:37-40, "But though He had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him: that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe (why?), because that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts (why? Because they had refused to believe on Christ? This is the popular belief, but mark the answer of Scripture) that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." Now, reader, it is just a question as to whether or not you will believe what God has revealed in His Word. It is not a matter of prolonged searching or profound study, but a childlike spirit which is needed, in order to understand this doctrine.

Verse 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" (vide 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!

Verse 19: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?" The language which the apostle here puts into the mouth of the objector is so plain and pointed, that misunderstanding ought to be impossible. Why doth He yet find fault? Now, reader, what can these words mean? Formulate your own reply before considering ours. Can the force of the apostle’s question be any other than this: If it is true that God has "mercy" on whom He wills, and also "hardens" whom He wills, then what becomes of human responsibility? In such a case men are nothing better than puppets, and if this be true then it would be unjust for God to "find fault" with His helpless creatures. Mark the word "then"—Thou wilt say then unto me—he states the (false) inference or conclusion which the objector draws from what the apostle had been saying. And mark, my reader, the apostle readily saw the doctrine he had formulated would raise this very objection, and unless what we have written throughout this book provokes, in some at least, (all whose carnal minds are not subdued by divine grace) the same objection, then it must be either because we have not presented the doctrine which is set forth in Romans 9, or else because human nature has changed since the apostle’s day. Consider now the remainder of the verse (19). The apostle repeats the same objection in a slightly different form—repeats it so that his meaning may not be misunderstood—namely, "For who hath resisted His will?" It is clear then that the subject under immediate discussion relates to God’s "will", i.e., His sovereign ways, which confirms what we have said above upon verses 17 and 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?

Verse 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 honor and vessels of mercy, and also, on the other hand, with those whom He "hates" and "hardens"—vessels unto dishonor and vessels of wrath.

Verses 21-23: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory." In these verses the apostle furnishes a full and final reply to the objections raised in verse 19. First, he asks, "Hath not the potter power over the clay?" etc. It is to be noted the word here translated "power" is a different one in the Greek from the one rendered "power" in verse 22 where it can only signify His might; but here in verse 21, the "power" spoken of must refer to the Creator’s rights or sovereign prerogatives; that this is so, appears from the fact that the same Greek word is employed in John 1:12—"As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God"—which, as is well known, means the right or privilege to become the sons of God. The R. V. employs "right" both in John 1:12 and Romans 9:21. Verse 21: "Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" That the "potter" here is God Himself is certain from the previous verse, where the apostle asks "Who art thou that repliest against God?" and then, speaking in the terms of the figure he was about to use, continues, "Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it" etc. Some there are who would rob these words of their force by arguing that while the human potter makes certain vessels to be used for less honorable purposes than others, nevertheless, they are designed to fill some useful place. But the apostle does not here say, Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto an honorable use and another to a less honorable use, but he speaks of some "vessels" being made "unto dishonour". It is true, of course, that God’s wisdom will yet be fully vindicated, inasmuch as the destruction of the reprobate will promote His glory—in what way the next verse tells us.

Ere passing to the next verse let us summarize the teaching of this and the two previous ones. In verse 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 verse 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 verse 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 honor, and another unto dishonor?" It should be carefully noted that the word for "power" here is exousia—an entirely different word from the one translated "power" in the following verse ("to make known His power"), where it is dunaton. 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 verse 19. Third, in verses 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 verses 13 and 17 clearly show us—"For this same purpose have I raised thee (Pharaoh) up".

Verse 22: "What if God, willing to shew 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, i.e., differently with different ones—having mercy on some and hardening others, making one vessel "unto honour" and another "unto dishonour". Observe, that here in verse 22 the apostle first mentions "vessels of wrath", before he refers in verse 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 verse 19. Two reasons are given why God makes some "vessels unto dishonour": first, to "shew 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 every one 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 verses 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 Exodus 4:21!

Romans 9:22 is clearly a continuation in thought of verse 21, and verse 21 is part of the apostle’s reply to the questions raised in verse 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, i.e., 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).

Verse 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 verse 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. Romans 9:22 does not say the vessels of wrath fitted themselves, nor does it say they are fit for destruction, instead, it declares they are "fitted to destruction", and the context shows plainly it is God who thus "fits" them—objectively by His eternal decrees.

Though Romans 9 contains the fullest setting forth of the doctrine of Reprobation, there are still other passages which refer to it, one or two more of which we will now briefly notice: —

"What then? That which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not, but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened" (Rom. 11:7 R. V.). Here we have two distinct and clearly defined classes which are set in sharp antithesis: the "election" and "the rest"; the one "obtained", the other is "hardened". On this verse we quote from the comments of John Bunyan of immortal memory:—"These are solemn words: they sever between men and men—the election and the rest, the chosen and the left, the embraced and the refused. By ‘rest’ here must needs be understood those not elect, because set the one in opposition to the other, and if not elect, whom then but reprobate?"

Writing to the saints at Thessalonica the apostle declared "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5:9). Now surely it is patent to any impartial mind that this statement is quite pointless if God has not "appointed" any to wrath. To say that God "hath not appointed us to wrath", clearly implies that there are some whom He has "appointed to wrath", and were it not that the minds of so many professing Christians are so blinded by prejudice, they could not fail to clearly see this.

"A Stone of stumbling, and a Rock or offence, even to them who stumble at the Word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed" (1 Pet. 2:8). The "whereunto" manifestly points back to the stumbling at the Word, and their disobedience. Here, then, God expressly affirms that there are some who have been "appointed" (it is the same Greek word as in 1 Thess. 5:9) unto disobedience. Our business is not to reason about it, but to bow to Holy Scripture. Our first duty is not to understand, but to believe what God has said.

"But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption" (2 Pet. 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 4). Attempts have been made to escape the obvious force of this verse by substituting a different translation. The R.V. 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" (Rev. 13:8, R. V. compare Rev. 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 dishonor; 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" (Eccl. 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 desire 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 that 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" (Matt. 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 nowise 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" (Rom. 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 (2 Pet. 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 savor of death unto death; and to the other we are a savour of life unto life" (2 Cor. 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 Ezekiel 18:31—"Why will ye die, O house of Israel?" On this passage we cannot do better than quote from the comments of Augustas 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 Ezekiel 18:31, 32 for the simple but sufficient reason that they were already spiritually dead!

Matthew 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" (Acts 17:30)? 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" (Acts 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 2 Timothy 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" (1 Tim. 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: Mark 1:5; John 6:45; 8:2; Acts 21:28; 22:15; 2 Corinthians 3:2 etc., and he will find full proof of our assertion. 1 Timothy 2:4 cannot teach that God wills the salvation of all mankind, or otherwise all mankind would be saved—"What His soul desireth even that He doeth" (Job 23:13)!

Again; we are asked, Does not Scripture declare, again and again, that God is no "respecter of persons"? We answer, it certainly does, and God’s electing grace proves it. The seven sons of Jesse, though older and physically superior to David, are passed by, while the young shepherd-boy is exalted to Israel’s throne. The scribes and lawyers pass unnoticed, and ignorant fishermen are chosen to be the apostles of the Lamb. Divine truth is hidden from the wise and prudent and is revealed to babes instead. The great majority of the wise and noble are ignored, while the weak, the base, the despised, are called and saved. Harlots and publicans are sweetly compelled to come in to the gospel feast, while self-righteous Pharisees are suffered to perish in their immaculate morality. Truly, God is "no respecter" of persons or He would not have saved me.

That the Doctrine of Reprobation is a "hard saying" to the carnal mind is readily acknowledged—yet, is it any "harder" than that of eternal punishment? That it is clearly taught in Scripture we have sought to demonstrate, and it is not for us to pick and choose from the truths revealed in God’s Word. Let those who are inclined to receive those doctrines which commend themselves to their judgment, and who reject those which they cannot fully understand, remember those scathing words of our Lord’s, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25): fools because slow of heart; slow of heart, not dull of head!

Once more we would avail ourselves of the language of Calvin: "But, as I have hitherto only recited such things as are delivered without any obscurity or ambiguity in the Scriptures, let persons who hesitate not to brand with ignominy those Oracles of heaven, beware what kind of opposition they make. For, if they pretend ignorance, with a desire to be commended for their modesty, what greater instance of pride can be conceived, than to oppose one little word to the authority of God! as, ‘It appears otherwise to me,’ or ‘I would rather not meddle with this subject.’ But if they openly censure, what will they gain by their puny attempts against heaven? Their petulance, indeed, is no novelty; for in all ages there have been impious and profane men, who have virulently opposed this doctrine. But they shall feel the truth of what the Spirit long ago declared by the mouth of David, that God ‘is clear when He judgeth’ (Ps. 51 :4). David obliquely hints at the madness of men who display such excessive presumption amidst their insignificance, as not only to dispute against God, but to arrogate to themselves the power of condemning Him. In the meantime, he briefly suggests, that God is unaffected by all the blasphemies which they discharge against heaven, but that He dissipates the mists of calumny, and illustriously displays His righteousness; our faith, also, being founded on the Divine Word, and therefore, superior to all the world, from its exaltation looks down with contempt upon those mists" (John Calvin).

In closing 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 A. D.) 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-Calvinism 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 freewill 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 favor as He pleases), hath passed by, and fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be 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 Romans 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 Romans 9:22, "What if God willing to shew 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 A.D.) says, "How awful doth the majesty of God appear in the dreadfulness of His anger! This we may learn to be one end of the damnation of the wicked."

Augustus Toplady, author of "Rock of Ages" and other sublime hymns, wrote: "God, from all eternity decreed to leave some of Adam’s fallen posterity in their sins, and to exclude them from the participation of Christ and His benefits". And again; "We, with the Scriptures, assert: That there is a predestination of some particular persons to life, for the praise of the glory of Divine grace; and also a predestination of other particular persons to death for the glory of Divine justice—which death of punishment they shall inevitably undergo, and that justly, on account of their sins George Whitefield, that stalwart of the eighteenth century, used by God in blessing to so many, wrote: "Without doubt, the doctrine of election and reprobation must stand or fall together. . . . I frankly acknowledge I believe the doctrine of Reprobation, that God intends to give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number; and that the rest of mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal death which is its proper wages "Fitted to destruction" (Rom. 9:22). After declaring this phrase admits of two interpretations, Dr. Hodge—perhaps the best known and most widely read commentator on Romans—says, "The other interpretation assumes that the reference is to God and that the Greek word for ‘fitted’ has its full participle force; prepared (by God) for destruction." This, says Dr. Hodge, "Is adopted not only by the majority of Augustinians, but also by many Lutherans".

Were it necessary we are prepared to give quotations from the writings of Wycliffe, Huss, Ridley, Hooper, Cranmer, Ussher, John Trapp, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Manton (Chaplain to Cromwell), John Owen, Witsius, John Gill (predecessor of Spurgeon), and a host of others. We mention this simply to show that many of the most eminent saints in bye-gone 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.

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever, Amen" (Rom. 11:33-36).

From Heaven Downward

04.02.10
J.A. Matteson

“And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom….” Matthew 27:51

Pilgrim, let not the Apostle’s record of our Lord’s crucifixion escape your notice too quickly, for within that short statement is be found divine love, initiative, justice, satisfaction, and glory. The Lord instructed Moses to construct a dwelling place for Him during their wilderness wanderings. Inside the tabernacle was the holy place, and further inside the holy of holies (the dwelling place of God), a space roughly five meters cubed (let the reader also note the New Jerusalem is described a perfect cube).

Separating the holy place from the holy of holies was a curtain or veil about the thickness of a man’s hand. The veil was intended to keep sinners out of the presence of the Holy, lest in His wrath toward sin He should consume them instantly. The veil was a physical representation of human sinfulness, that which blocks the race from communion with the Lord, for He who is holy. When the Price of Glory breathed His last on the cross, yielding up His spirit, the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom symbolizing that sinners now had access to fellowship with God through the atoning sacrifice of God’s only begotten Son.

That God sent His Son to die for sinners is a fact attested to in Scripture, but what was the basis for it? The answer to that question is divine love and it may be found in Deuteronomy 7:6-8a, “For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers….” Indeed, believers love Him because He first loved them and chose them as His own special possession. With love as the basis for Christ’s atoning death on behalf of sinners, divine initiative was the means to bring it about.

There are many ways in which a peace of cloth might be torn. That the veil was torn is vital, how it was torn invokes awe, for in it’s destruction we see the implication of divine initiative in salvation—the veil was torn from top to bottom, or from heaven downward toward sinners. God’s condescension through the incarnation and atonement leads the pilgrim to worship and lavish praise on his heavenly Priest and King who, “although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:6-8).

The tearing of the veil also informs sinners that the death of the Lord Jesus Christ satisfied the Fathers own justice while simultaneously revealing His mercy, for “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). As weak as the Law was, being unable to correct the depravity of mankind in order to justify the race, serving rather to magnify the heinous nature of indwelling sin, Jesus Christ incurred sins holy wrath in His own body, nailing to the cross sin, subjecting it to the Father’s righteous justice. Oh how marvelous is the love of Christ toward those He came to redeem, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (Jn. 15:13).

In addition, beloved, the tearing of the veil informs you that your sin debt has been completely paid. In no way was your ransom at Calvary partial, Christ securing part of your pardon through His shed blood, and now you must complete the work in the flesh. God forbid as that is the teaching of the Pope! But someone may say, “Yes, I know that Christ died for sinners, but especially for those who believe, and I believe.” To this end we agree. But how is it that you came to believe, dear pilgrim? Was it that while in the flesh you came to see the wisdom of God as precious, that which the Apostle states is foolishness to those who are perishing? (1 Cor. 1:18). Do you not yet realize that flesh and blood profits nothing, and it is the Spirit who brings life? (Jn. 6:63).

Your faith is indeed your own and your exercise of it is necessary for salvation (Rom. 10:9), but where did it originate? How is it that at one moment you did not believe, and in the next instant your heart was pierced by the truth of the Gospel; do you account for this? Do you claim this insight of your own doing while in the flesh? If so then you have much to boast about in the flesh, but not before God. Let God alone be glorified, beloved, for the faith you possess is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8-9). Faith exercised is the outcome of the work of the Spirit within you (Phil. 2:13). For how did the Jesus respond to Peter when he confessed Him as the Christ, the Son of the living God? Had the apostle’s faith and insight been conjured up in the flesh why then did Christ respond, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17)? Therefore, the Gospel of the grace of God both atones for sin through the shed blood of the Savior at Calvary for those foreknown to the Father in eternity past, and quickens the same who are dead in sins and trespasses to new life and faith through the Word of Christ (Rom 10:17).

Finally, beloved, the tearing of the veil from top to bottom symbolizes the guarantee of your future glorification. What the Lord initiated in you He will be faithful to complete (Phil. 1:6). The same divine power that saved you will sustain you in faith to the end (Rom. 8:29-31). Let us rejoice in the goodness of God who has secured our salvation from start to finish, for we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus, and let us in humility confess that the only reason we love Him is that He first loved us, and that without any merit in us He chose us before the foundation of the world according to the good pleasure of His own will (Rom. 9:11; Eph. 1:4). Beloved, let us ponder these things as we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Copyright (c) 2010 Immutable Word Ministries ("...the word of our God stands forever." Isa. 40:8).