a) It is not denied that true believers are styled in Scripture the "elect of God" but the question arises, What is the import of that act of grace which is termed "an election?" We find it explained in two clear passages of Scripture. To be elected, is to be separated from "the world,” and to be "sanctified by the Spirit, and by the blood of Christ;" hence, election is not only an act done in time, but subsequent to the administration of the means of salvation. b.) The Calvinistic doctrine, that God hath from eternity chosen unto salvation a set number of men unto faith and final salvation, presents a different aspect, and requires an appeal to the Word of God. It has two parts: 1. The choosing of a determinate number of men, and, 2. That this election is unconditional. (P. 338.) A. As to the choosing of a determinate number of men, it is allowed by Calvinists that they have no express Scriptural evidence for this tenet. And (1.) As to God's eternal purpose to elect, we know nothing except from revelation; and that declares, (a) that he willeth all men to be saved: (b) that Christ died for all men, in order to the salvation of all: and (c) the decree of God is, "He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned;" and if God be unchangeable, this must have been his decree from all eternity: (d) if the fault of men's destruction lies in themselves—as we have proved-then the number of the elect is capable of increase and diminution. 2.) This doctrine necessarily carries with it that of the unconditional reprobation of all mankind except the elect, which cannot be reconciled, (a) with the love of God; (b) with the wisdom of God; (c) with the grace of God; (d) with the compassion of God; (e) with the justice of God; (f) with the sincerity of God; (g) with the Scriptural doctrine that God is no respecter of persons; (h) with the Scriptural doctrine of the eternal salvation of infants; (i) and, finally, with the proper end of punitive justice. B. We consider now the second branch of this doctrine, viz., that personal election is unconditional. (P. 345.) (1.) According to this doctrine, the Church of God is constituted on the sole principle of the divine purpose, not upon the basis of faith and obedience, which manifestly contradicts the Word of God. (2.) This doctrine of election without respect to faith contradicts the history of the commencement and first constitution of the Church of Christ. (3.) There is no such doctrine in Scripture as the election of individuals unto faith; and it is inconsistent with several passages which speak expressly of personal election: e. g., John xv, 19; 1 Peter i, 2; 2 Thess. ii, 13, 14. (Pp. 347, 348.) (4.) There is another class of texts, referring to believers, not in i II. Having thus considered election, we come now to examine those texts which speak of the calling and predestination of believers. (I.) The words "call" and "calling" occur frequently in the New Testament. The parable in Matthew xxii, 1-14, seems to have given rise to many of these; and a clear interpretation of it will explain the use of the phrase in most other passages. a.) Three classes of persons are called in the parable. (1.) The disobedient persons who made light of the call. (2.) Those embraced in the class of "destitute of the wedding garment." (3.) The approved guests. b.) As to the call itself. (1.) The three classes are on an equality. (2.) No irresistible influence is employed. (3.) They are called into a company, or society, before which the banquet is spread. These views explain the passages in which the term is used in the pistles: in none of them is the exclusive calling of any set number of men contained. (II.) The Synod of Dort attempt (p. 355) to reason the doctrine from Romans viii, 30. But this passage says nothing of a “set and determi‹:ate number of men." It treats indeed of the privileges and hopes of believers, but not as secured to them by any such decree as the Synod of Dort advocates; for, (1.) The matter would have been out of place in St. Paul's lofty cou clusion of his high argument on justification by faith. (2.) The context relieves the text of the appearance of favouring the doctrine. (3.) The apostle does indeed speak of the foreknowledge of believers, taken distributively and personally, to church privileges; but this strengthens our argument against the use of the passage inade by the Synod of Dort; for 1. Foreknowledge may be simple approval, as in Romans xi, 2; and 2. If it be taken in this passage in the sense of simple prescience, it will come to the same issue; for believers, if foreknown at all, in any other sense than all men are foreknown, must have been foreknown as believers. (4.) As to the predestination spoken of in the text, the way is now clear: the foreknown believers were predestinated, called, justified, and glorified. EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE SUPPOSED TO LIMIT THE EXTENT OF CHRIST'S REDEMPTION. (Ch. xxvii.) John vi, 37: "All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." The Calvinistic view of this text is, that a certain number were "given" to Christ; and as none others can come to him, the doctrine of distinguishing grace is established. (1.) Our first objection to this view is, that Christ placed the reason of the Jews' not coming, in themselves. John v, 38, 40, 44, 46. (2.) The phrase, "to be given" by the Father to Christ, is abundantly explained by the context. 2. Matthew xx, 15, 16. The Calvinistic view here is, that God has a right, on the principle of pure sovereignty, to afford grace to some, and to leave others to perish in their sins. The fact that this passage is the conclusion of the parable of the vineyard, is sufficient refutation of the interpretation. 5. 2 Timothy ii, 19. This text bears no friendly aspect toward Calvinism. 4. John x, 26: “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." It is a sufficient reply to the Calvinistic view of this text, to state that men are called "the sheep of Christ" in regard to their qualities and acts, and not with reference to any supposed transaction between the Father and Christ. 5 John xiii, 18. The term "know" in this text is evidently used in the sense of discriminating character. 6. John xv, 16. The word "chosen" in this text is gratuitously interpreted (by Calvinists) as relating to an eternal election; but Christ had "chosen them out of the world," which must have been done in time. 7. 2 Timothy i, 9: "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling," &c. No personal election spoken of here. The parallel passage, Eph. iii, 4-6, shows that the apostle was speaking of the divine purpose to form the church out of both Jews and Gentiles. 8. Acte xiii, 48: "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (1.) If the Gentiles, who believed, only did so because they were “ordained" so to do, then the Jews, who believed not, were not guilty, as it is af firmed, of PUTTING THE WORD AWAY from them. (2.) The Calvinistic view carries with it the notion that all the lect Gen tiles at Antioch believed at once, and that no more remained to be con verted. (3.) Some Calvinists render the words “determined," or "ordered," for eternal life. (4.) In no place in the New Testament where the same word occurs, is it ever employed to convey the meaning of destiny, or predestinatiou. 9. Luke x, 20. Our Calvinistic friends forget, in interpreting this text, that names may be "blotted out of the book of life." 10. Prov. xvi, 4. The true meaning is, that God renders even those who have made themselves wicked, the means of glorifying his justice in their punishment. 11. John xii, 37-40. Quotation from Isaiah. In examining this passage, we find, (1.) That it does not affirm that the eyes of the Jew should be blinded by a divine agency, as Mr. Scott and the Calvinists assume. In every view of the passage, the responsible agent is "THIS PEOPLE"-the perverse and obstinate Jews themselves. (2.) A simple prophecy is not a declaration of purpose at all; but the declaration of a future event. (3.) Even admitting the Calvinistic view of this passage, it would afford no proof of general election and reprobation, since it has application to the unbelieving part of the Jews only. 12. Jude 4. These certain men had been foretold in the Scriptures, or their punishment predicted. There is nothing here of eternal purpose. 13. 1 Cor. iv, 7: "For who maketh thee to differ from another A favourite argument with Calvinists is founded on this text; and a dilemma raised on the supposition of gospel offers being made to two men, why one accepts and the other rejects? They answer that election alone solves the question. But, 1 Put the question as to one man, at two different periods;—and elec tion will not solve this difficulty: of course, then, it will not solve the other. (2.) The question of the apostle has reference to gifts and endowments, not to a difference in religious state. 8.) Following out their view, the doctrine would follow, that sufficiency of grace is denied to the wicked,-which would remove all their responsibility. 14. cts xviii, 9, 10: " for I have much people in this city." This may mean, either that there were many devout people in the city, or hat there would be many subsequently converted there. EORIES WHICH LIMIT THE EXTENT OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST (Ch. xxviii.) We shall notice in this chapter the doctrines of predestination, etc. As stated by Calvin himself, and by Calvinistic theologians and churches. Pp. 381-410.) - Calvin. 1. Statement of his opinions, from the “Institutes." (Pp. 381, 382.) His answers to objections shown to be weak and futile, (pp. 383, 384,) e. g., a.) The objection that the system is unjust: which he answers by as serting that it is the will of God: thus making four evasions-1, 2, 3, 4. b.) The objection that if corruption is the cause of man's destruction, the corruption itself was an effect of the divine decree: which he answers by referring again to the sovereign will of God. (P. 384.) 3. His attempts to reconcile his doctrine with man's demerit, and to relieve it of the charge of making God the author of sin, shown to be feeble and contradictory. (Pp. 385-387.) 4. His system not reducable to sublapsarianism. (P. 388.) 5. His tenets shown to be in opposition to the doctrines of the first ages. (P. 389.) 6. Their history from the time of Augustine to Calvin. (P. 390.) (II) Calvinistic theologians and churches. 1. Three leading theories prevalent among the reformed churches prior to the Synod of Dort. a.) Supralapsarian. (1.) Decree to save certain men by grace, and to condemn others by justice. (2.) Means: creation of Adam, and ordination of sin. (3.) Operation: irresistible grace, producing faith and final salvation. (4.) Result: that reprobates have no grace, and no capacity of believing and of being saved. (Pp 391, 392.) b.) Also supralapsarian, but differing somewhat from (a.), viz., that it does not lay down the creation or the fall as a mediate cause, foreordained of God for the execution of the decree of reprobation; but yet Arminius shows that, according to this view, the fall is a necessary means for its exercise, and thus God is made the author of sin. (Pp. 392, 393.) c.) Sublapsarian. In which man, as the objer of predestination, is considered as fallen. |