The Sovereignty of God

Should it be asked, but does not the Holy Spirit overcome a man's enmity and hatred when he convicts the sinner of his sins and his need of Christ? And does not the Spirit of God produce such conviction in many that perish? Such language betrays confusion of thought. Were such a man's enmity really overcome, then he would readily turn to Christ. That he does not come to the Savior demonstrates that his enmity is not overcome. But that many are, through the preaching of the Word, convicted by the Holy Spirit, who nevertheless die in unbelief, is solemnly true. Yet it is a fact, which must not be lost sight of, that the Holy Spirit does something more in each of God's elect than he does in the non-elect. He works in them, both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Philippians 2.13 In reply to what we have said above, Arminians would answer, No, the Spirit's work of conviction is the same, both in the converted and in the unconverted. That which distinguishes the one class from the other is that the former yielded to his strivings, whereas the latter resists them. But if this were the case, then the Christian would have ground for boasting and self-glorying over his cooperation with the Spirit. But this would flatly contradict Ephesians 2.8 For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God. Let us appeal to the actual experience of the Christian reader. Was there not a time, may the remembrance of it bow each of us into the dust, when you were unwilling to come to Christ? There was. Since then you have come to him. Are you now prepared to give him all the glory for that? Psalm 115.1 Do you not acknowledge you came to Christ because the Holy Spirit brought you from unwillingness to willingness? You do. Then is it not also a patent a fact that the Holy Spirit has not done in many others what he has in you? Granting that many others have heard the gospel, been shown their need of Christ, yet they are still unwilling to come to him, thus he has wrought more in you than in them. Do you answer, Yet I remember well the time when the great issue was presented to me, and my consciousness testifies that my will acted, and that I yielded to the claims of Christ upon me. Quite true. But before you yielded, the Holy Spirit overcame the native enmity of your mind against God, and this enmity he does not overcome in all. Should it be said that it is because they are unwilling for the enmity to be overcome? Ah, none are thus willing till he has put forth his almighty power and wrought a miracle of grace in the heart. But let us now inquire, What is the human will? Is it a self-determining agent, or is it in turn determined by something else? Is it sovereign or servant? Is the will superior to every other faculty of our being, so that it governs them, or is it moved by their impulses and subject to their pleasure? Does the will rule the mind, or does the mind control the will? Is the will free to do as it pleases, or is it under the necessity of rendering obedience to something outside of itself? Does the will stand apart from the other great faculties or powers of the soul, a man within a man, who can reverse the man and fly against the man, and split him into segments as a glass snake breaks in pieces? Or is the will connected with the other faculties, as the tail of the serpent is with his body, and that again with his head, so that where the head goes, the whole creature goes, and as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he? First thought, then heart, desire or aversion, and then act. Is it this way the dog wags the tail, or is it the will, the tail, wags the dog? Is the will the first and chief thing in man, or is it the last thing, to be kept subordinate and in its place beneath the other faculties? And is the true philosophy of moral action, and its process that of Genesis 3, 6, and when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, sense, perception, intelligence, and a tree to be desired, affections she took and ate thereof, the will, George S. Bishop. These are questions of more than academical interest, they are of practical importance. We believe that we do not go too far when we affirm that the answer returned to these questions is a fundamental test of doctrinal soundness. Since writing the above, we have read an article by the late J. N. Darby, entitled, Man's So-Called Free Will, that opens with these words, This reappearance of the doctrine of free will serves to support that of the pretensions of the natural man to be not irremediably fallen, for this is what such doctrine tends to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all persons in whom this conviction is based on gross external sins, believe more or less in free will. 1. The Nature of the Human Will What is the will? We answer, the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessarily implies the refusal of one thing and the acceptance of another. The positive and the negative must both be present to the mind before there can be any choice. In every act of the will, there is a preference, the desiring one thing rather than another. Where there is no preference but complete indifference, there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. But there is something which influences the choice, something which determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both sovereign and servant, it cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative because, as we have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations, is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself. Hence volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant. And if the will is their servant, then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute freedom of it. Acts of the will cannot come to pass of themselves. To say they can is to postulate an uncaused effect. Ex nihilo nihilo fit. Nothing cannot produce something. In all ages, however, there have been those who contended for the absolute freedom or sovereignty of the human will. Men will argue that the will possesses a self-determining power. They say, for example, I can turn my eyes up or down. The mind is quite indifferent, which I do. The will must decide. But this is a contradiction in terms. This case supposes that I choose one thing in preference to another while I am in a state of complete indifference. Manifestly, both cannot be true. But it may be replied, the mind was quite indifferent until it came to have a preference. Exactly. And at that time, the will was quiescent, too. But the moment indifference vanished, choice was made. And the fact that indifference gave place to preference overthrows the argument that the will is capable of choosing between two equal things. As we have said, choice implies the acceptance of one alternative and the rejection of the other or others. That which determines the will is that which caused it to choose. If the will is determined, then there must be a determiner. What is it that determines the will? We reply, the strongest motive power which is brought to bear upon it. What this motive power is varies in different cases. With one, it may be the logic of reason. With another, the voice of conscience. With another, the impulse of the emotions. With another, the whisper of the tempter. With another, the power of the Holy Spirit. Whichever of these presents the strongest motive power and exerts the greatest influence upon the individual himself is that which impels the will to act. In other words, the action of the will is determined by that condition of mind which in turn is influenced by the world, the flesh, and the devil as well as by God which has the greatest degree of tendency to excite volition. To illustrate what we have just said, let us analyze a simple example. On a certain Lord's Day afternoon, a friend of ours was suffering from a severe headache. He was anxious to visit the sick but feared that if he did so, his own condition would grow worse and as a consequence, be unable to attend the preaching of the gospel that evening. Two alternatives confronted him, to visit the sick that afternoon and risk being sick himself or to take a rest that afternoon and visit the sick the next day and probably arise refreshed and fit for the evening service. Now what was it that decided our friend in choosing between these two alternatives? The will? Not at all. True that in the end, the will made a choice but the will itself was moved to make the choice. In the above case, certain considerations presented strong motives for selecting either alternative. These motives were balanced, the one against the other, by the individual himself, that is, his heart and mind and the one alternative being supported by stronger motives than the other. Decision was formed accordingly and then the will acted. On the one side, our friend felt impelled by a sense of duty to visit the sick. He was moved with compassion to do so and thus a strong motive was presented to his mind. On the other hand, his judgment reminded him that he was feeling far from well himself, that he badly needed a rest, that if he visited the sick, his own condition would probably be made worse and in such case, he would be prevented from attending the preaching of the gospel that night. Furthermore, he knew that on the morrow, the Lord willing, he could visit the sick and this being so, he concluded he ought to rest that afternoon. Here then are two sets of alternatives presented to our Christian brother. On the one side was a sense of duty plus his own sympathy. On the other side was a sense of his own need plus a real concern for God's glory for he felt that he ought to attend the preaching of the gospel that night. The latter prevailed. Spiritual considerations outweighed his sense of duty. Having formed his decision, the will acted accordingly and he retired to rest. An analysis of the above case shows that the mind or reasoning faculties are directed by spiritual considerations and the mind regulated and controlled the will. Hence we say that if the will is controlled, it is neither sovereign nor free but is the servant of the mind. It is only as we see the real nature of freedom and mark that the will is subject to the motives brought to bear upon it that we are able to discern there is no conflict between two statements of holy writ which concern our blessed Lord. In Matthew 4.1 we read, Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. But in Mark 1.12 and 13 we are told, And immediately the spirit drift him into the wilderness and he was there in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan. It is utterly impossible to harmonize these two statements by the Arminian conception of the will but really there is no difficulty that Christ was driven implies it was by a forcible motive or powerful impulse such as was not to be resisted or refused. That he was led denotes his freedom in going. Putting the two together we learn that he was driven with a voluntary condescension thereto. So there is the liberty of man's will and the victorious efficacy of God's grace united together. A sinner may be drawn and yet come to Christ. The drawing presenting to him the irresistible motive the coming signifying the response of his will as Christ was driven and led by the spirit into the wilderness. Human philosophy insists that it is the will which governs the man but the word of God teaches that it is the heart which is the dominating center of our being. Many scriptures might be quoted in substantiation of this. Keep thy heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues of life. Proverbs 4.23 For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts adulteries, fornications, murders, etc. Mark 7.21 Here our Lord traces these sinful acts back to their source and declares that their fountain is the heart and not the will. Again, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth but their heart is far from me. Matthew 15.8 If further proof were required we might call attention to the fact that the word heart is found in the Bible more than three times oftener than is the word will even though nearly half of the references to the latter refers to God's will. When we affirm that it is the heart and not the will which governs the man we are not merely striving about words but insisting on a distinction that is of vital importance. Here is an individual before whom two alternatives are placed. Which will he choose? We answer, the one which is most agreeable to himself that is his heart the innermost core of his being. Before the sinner is set a life of virtue and piety and a life of sinful indulgence which will he follow? The latter. Why? Because that is his choice but does that prove the will is sovereign? Not at all. Go back from effect to cause. Why does the sinner choose a life of sinful indulgence? Because he prefers it and he does prefer it all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding though of course he does not enjoy the effects of such a course and why does he prefer it? Because his heart is sinful. The same alternatives in like manner confront the Christian and he chooses and strives after a life of piety and virtue. Why? Because God has given him a new heart or nature. Hence we say it is not the will which makes the sinner impervious to all appeals to forsake his way but his corrupt and evil heart. He will not come to Christ because he does not want to and he does not want to because his heart hates him and loves sin. See Jeremiah 17. 9. In defining the law we have said above that the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action. We say the immediate cause for the will is not the primary cause of any action. We say the immediate cause for the will is not the primary cause of any action any more than the hand is. Just as the hand is controlled by the muscles and nerves of the arm and the arm by the brain so the will is the servant of the mind and the mind in turn is affected by various influences and motives which are brought to bear upon it. But it may be asked does not scripture make its appeal to man's will? Is it not written and whosoever will let him take the water of life freely? Revelation 22.17 And did not our Lord say ye will not come to me that ye might have life? John 5.40. We answer the appeal of scripture is not always made to man's will. Other of his faculties are also addressed. For example, he that hath ears to hear let him hear hear and your soul shall live. Look unto me and be ye saved. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Come now and let us reason together with the heart Man believeth unto righteousness, etc. etc. 2. The bondage of the human will. In any treatise that proposes to deal with the human will, its nature and functions, respect should be had to the will in three different men, namely unfallen Adam, the sinner, and the Lord Jesus Christ. In unfallen Adam the will was free, free in both directions, free toward good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of innocency, but not in a state of holiness as it is so often assumed and asserted. Adam's will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise. That is to say, in Adam there was no constraining bias in him toward good or evil and as such Adam differed radically from all his descendants as well as from the man, Christ Jesus. But with the sinner it is far otherwise. The sinner is born with a will that is not in a condition of moral equipoise because in him there is a heart that is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked and this gives him a bias toward evil. So too with the Lord Jesus it was far otherwise. He also differed radically from unfallen Adam. The Lord Jesus Christ could not sin because he was the Holy One of God. Before he was born into the world it was said to Mary, the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1.35 Speaking reverently then we say that the will of the Son of Man was not in a condition of moral equipoise that is capable of turning toward either good or evil. The will of the Lord Jesus was biased toward that which is good because side by side with his sinless, holy, perfect humanity was his eternal deity. Now in contradistinction from the will of the Lord Jesus which was biased toward good and Adam's will which before his fall was in a condition of moral equipoise capable of turning toward either good or evil. The sinner's will is biased toward evil and therefore is free in one direction only namely in the direction of evil. The sinner's will is enslaved because it is in bondage to and is the servant of a depraved heart. And what does the sinner's freedom consist? This question is naturally suggested by what we have just said above. The sinner is free in the sense of being unforced from, without. God never forces the sinner to sin. But the sinner is not free to do either good or evil because an evil heart within is ever inclining him toward sin. Let us illustrate what we have in mind. I hold in my hand a book. I release it. What happens? It falls. In which direction? Downwards? Always downwards. Why? Because answering the law of gravity its own weight sinks it. Suppose I desire that book to occupy a position three feet higher. Then what? I must lift it. A power outside of that book must raise it. Such is the relationship which fallen man sustains toward God. Whilst divine power upholds him, he is preserved from plunging still deeper into sin. Let that power be withdrawn and he falls. His own weight of sin drags him down. God does not push him down any more than I did that book. Let all divine restraint be removed and every man is capable of becoming, would become a Cain, a Pharaoh, a Judas. How then is the sinner to move heavenward? By an act of his own will? Not so. A power outside of himself must grasp the hold of him and lift him every inch of the way. The sinner is free, but free in one direction only. Free to fall, free to sin. As the word expresses it, for when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. Romans 6 20 The sinner is free to do as he pleases, always as he pleases, except as he is restrained by God. But his pleasure is to sin. In the opening paragraph of this chapter we insisted that a proper conception of the nature and function of the will is of practical importance. Nay, that it constitutes a fundamental test of theological orthodoxy or doctrinal soundness. We wish to amplify this statement and attempt to demonstrate its accuracy. The freedom or bondage of the will was the dividing line between Augustinianism and Pelagianism, and in more recent times between Calvinism and Arminianism. Reduced to simple terms, this means that the difference involved was the affirmation or denial of the total depravity of man. In taking the affirmative, we shall now consider 3. The impotency of the human will. Does it he within the province of man's will to accept or reject the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior? Granted that the gospel is preached to the sinner, that the Holy Spirit convicts him of his lost condition, does it in the final analysis, he within the power of his own will to resist or to yield himself up to God? The answer to this question defines our conception of human depravity. That man is a fallen creature all professing Christians will allow, but what many of them mean by fallen is often difficult to determine. The general impression seems to be that man is now mortal, that he is no longer in the condition in which he left the hands of his Creator, that he is liable to disease, that he inherits evil tendencies, but that if he employs his powers to the best of his ability, somehow he will be happy at last. Oh, how far short of the sad truth! Infirmities, sickness, even corporeal death, are but trifles in comparison with the moral and spiritual effects of the Fall. It is only by consulting the Holy Scriptures that we are able to obtain some conception of the extent of that terrible calamity. When we say that man is totally depraved, we mean that the entrance of sin into the human constitution has affected every part and faculty of man's being. Total depravity means that man is in spirit and soul and body, the slave of sin and the captive of the devil, walking according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, Ephesians 2.2. This statement ought not to need arguing. It is a common fact of human experience. Man is unable to realize his own aspirations and materialize his own ideals. He cannot do the things that he would. There is a moral inability which paralyzes him. This is proof a positive, that he is no free man, but instead the slave of sin and Satan. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts, desires of your father ye will do. John 8.44 Sin is more than an act or a series of acts. It is a state or condition. It is that which lies behind and produces the acts. Sin has penetrated and permeated the whole of man's makeup. It has blinded the understanding, corrupted the heart and alienated the mind from God. And the will has not escaped. The will is under the dominion of sin and Satan. Therefore the will is not free. In short, the affections love as they do, and the will chooses as it does, because of the state of the heart. And because the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, there is none that seeketh after God. Romans 3.11 We repeat our question. Does it he within the power of the sinner's will to yield himself up to God? Let us attempt an answer by asking several others. Can water of itself rise above its own level? Can a clean thing come out of an unclean? Can the will reverse the whole tendency and strain of human nature? Can that which is under the dominion of sin originate that which is pure and holy? Manifestly not. If ever the will of a fallen and depraved creature is to move Godward, a divine power must be brought to bear upon it, which will overcome the influences of sin that pull in a counter direction. This is only another way of saying. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me. Draw him. John 6.44 In other words, God's people must be made willing in the day of his power. Psalm 110.3 As said Mr. Darby, if Christ came to save that which is lost, free will has no place. Not that God prevents men from receiving Christ. Far from it. But even when God uses all possible inducements, all that is capable of exerting influence in the heart of man, it only serves to show that man will have none of it, that so corrupt is his heart, and so decided his will not to submit to God, however much it may be the devil who encourages him to sin, that nothing can induce him to receive the Lord and to give up sin. If by the words freedom of man they mean that no one forces him to reject the Lord, this liberty fully exists. But if it is said that on account of the dominion of sin of which he is the slave, and that voluntarily he cannot escape from his condition and make choice of the good, even while acknowledging it to be good and approving of it, then he has no liberty whatever. He is not subject to the law, neither indeed can be. Hence they that are in the flesh cannot please God. The will is not sovereign, it is a servant because influenced and controlled by the elder faculties of man's being. The sinner is not a free agent because he is a slave of sin. This was clearly implied in our Lord's words. If the Son shall therefore make you free, ye shall be free indeed. John 8 36 Man is a rational being and as such responsible and accountable to God. But to affirm that he is a free moral agent is to deny that he is totally depraved, that is depraved in will as in everything else. Because man's will is governed by his mind and heart and because these have been vitiated and corrupted by sin, then it follows that if ever man is to turn or move in a Godward direction, God himself must work in him both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Philippians 2 13 Man's boasted freedom is in truth the bondage of corruption. He serves divers lusts and pleasures. Said a deeply taught servant of God, man is impotent as to his will. He has no will favorable to God. I believe in free will but then it is a will only free to act according to nature. A dove has no will to eat carrion. A raven has no will to eat the clean food of the dove. Put the nature of the dove into the raven and it will eat the food of the dove. Satan could have no will for holiness. We speak it with reference. God could have no will for evil. The sinner in his sinful nature could never have a will according to God. For this, he must be born again, J. Denham Smith. This is just what we have contended for throughout this chapter. The will is regulated by the nature. Among the decrees of the Council of Trent, 1563, which is the avowed standard of potpourri, we find the following. If anyone shall affirm that man's free will, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification. If, moreover, anyone shall say that the human will cannot refuse complying if it pleases, but that it is unactive and merely passive, let such and one be accursed. If anyone shall affirm that since the fall of Adam man's free will is lost and extinguished, or that it is a thing titular, yea, a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the church, let such and one be accursed. Thus those who today insist on the free will of the natural man believe precisely what Rome teaches on the subject, that Roman Catholics and Armenians walk hand in hand, may be seen from others of the decrees issued by the Council of Trent. If anyone shall affirm that a regenerate and justified man is bound to believe that he is certainly in the number of the elect, which 1 Thessalonians 1, 4, and 5 plainly teaches, AWP, let such and one be accursed. If anyone shall affirm with positive and absolute certainty that he shall surely have the gift of perseverance to the end which John 10 28 through 30 assuredly guarantees, AWP, let him be accursed. In order for any sinner to be saved, three things were indispensable. God the Father had to purpose his salvation. God the Son had to purchase it. God the Spirit has to apply it. God does more than propose to us. Were he only to invite, every last one of us would be lost. This is strikingly illustrated in the Old Testament. In Ezra 1, 1 through 3, we read, Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? His God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel. Here was an offer made, made to a people in captivity, affording them opportunity to leave and return to Jerusalem, God's dwelling place. Did all Israel eagerly respond to this offer? No, indeed. The vast majority were content to remain in the enemy's land. Only an insignificant remnant availed themselves of this overture of mercy. And why did they? Here the answer of Scripture. Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites, with all whose spirit God hath stirred up to go up to build the house of the Lord, which is in Jerusalem. Hezerah 1.5 In like manner God stirs up the spirits of his elect when the effectual call comes to them. And not till then do they have any willingness to respond to the divine proclamation. The superficial work of many of the professional evangelists of the last fifty years is largely responsible for the erroneous views now current upon the bondage of the natural man, encouraged by the laziness of those in the pew in their failure to prove all things. 1 Thessalonians 5.21 The average evangelical pulpit conveys the impression that it lies wholly in the power of the sinner, whether or not he shall be saved. It is said that God has done his part, now man must do his. Alas! What can a lifeless man do? And man by nature is dead in trespasses and sins. Ephesians 2.1 If this were really believed, there would be more dependence upon the Holy Spirit to come in with his miracle-working power and less confidence in our attempts to win men for Christ. When addressing the unsaved, the preachers often draw an analogy between God's ascending of the gospel to the sinner and a sick man in bed with some healing medicine on a table by his side. All he needs to do is reach forth his hand and take it. But in order for this illustration to be in any wise true to the picture which Scripture gives us of the fallen and depraved sinner, the sick man in bed must be described as one who is blind. Ephesians 4.18 So that he cannot see the medicine, his hand paralyzed. Romans 5.6 So that he is unable to reach forth for it, and his heart not only devoid of all confidence in the medicine, but filled with hatred against the physician himself. John 15.18 Oh, what superficial views of man's desperate plight are now entertained! Christ came here not to help those who were willing to help themselves, but to do for his people what they were incapable of doing for themselves, to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and then that sit-in darkness out of the prison house. Isaiah 42.7 Now in conclusion, let us anticipate and dispose of the usual and inevitable objection. Why preach the gospel if man is powerless to respond? Why did the sinner come to Christ if sin has so enslaved him that he has no power in himself to come? Reply, we do not preach the gospel because we believe that men are free moral agents and therefore capable of receiving Christ, but we preach it because we are commanded to do so. Mark 16.15 And though to them that perish it is foolishness, yet unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1.18 The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1.25 The sinner is dead in trespasses and sins. Ephesians 2.1 And a dead man is utterly incapable of willing anything. Hence it is that they that are in the flesh, the unregenerate, cannot please God. Romans 8.8 To fleshly wisdom it appears the height the folly to preach the gospel to those that are dead, and therefore beyond the reach of doing anything themselves. Yes, but God's ways are different from ours. It pleases God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 1 Corinthians 1.21 Man may deem it folly to prophesy to dead bones, and to say unto them, O ye dried bones, hear the word of the Lord. Ezekiel 37.4 But then it is the word of the Lord, and the words he speaks, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6.33 Wise men standing by the grave of Lazarus might pronounce it an evidence of insanity, when the Lord addressed a dead man with the words, Lazarus come forth. Ah, but he who thus spake was and is himself the resurrection and the life, and at his word even the dead live. We go forth to preach the gospel then, not because we believe that sinners have within themselves the power to receive the Savior it proclaims, but because the gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth, and because we know that as many as were ordained to eternal life. Acts 13.48 Shall believe. John 6.37 John 10.16 Note the shalls in God's appointed time for it is written thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. Psalm 110.3 What we have set forth in this chapter is not a product of modern thought, no indeed. It is that direct variance with it. It is those of the past few generations who have departed so far from the teachings of their scripturally instructed fathers. In the 39th article of the Church of England, we read the condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the grace of God by Christ presenting us being beforehand with us that we may have a good will and working with us when we have that good will. Article 10. In the Westminster Catechism of Faith adopted by the Presbyterians, we read the sinfulness of that state where into man fell consists of in the guilt of Adam's first sin the want of that righteousness wherein he was created and the corruption of his nature whereby he is utterly indisposed disabled and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good and wholly inclined to all evil and that continually. Answer to question 25. So in the Baptists Philadelphia Confession of Faith 1742 we read man by his fall into a state of sin hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation. So as a natural man being altogether averse from good and dead in sin is not able by his own strength to convert himself or to prepare himself there unto. Chapter 9. Chapter 8. God's Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Romans 14. In our last chapter we considered at some length the much debated and difficult question of the human will. We have shown that the will of the natural man is neither sovereign nor free but instead a servant and slave. We have argued that a right conception of the sinner's will, its servitude, is essential to a just estimate of his depravity and ruin. The utter corruption and degradation of human nature is something which man hates to acknowledge and which he will hotly and insistently deny until he is taught of God. Much, very much of the unsung doctrine which we now hear on every hand is the direct and logical outcome of man's repudiation of God's express estimate of human depravity. Men are claiming that they are increased with goods and have need of nothing and know not that they are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked. Revelation 3.17 They pray about the ascent of man and deny his fall. They put darkness for light and light for darkness. They boast of the free moral agency of man when in fact he is in bondage to sin and enslaved by Satan taken captive by him at his will. 2 Timothy 2.26 But if the natural man is not a free moral agent, does it also follow that he is not accountable? Free moral agency is an expression of human invention and as we have said before, to talk of the freedom of the natural man is flatly to repudiate his spiritual ruin. Nowhere does Scripture speak of the freedom or moral ability of the sinner. On the contrary, it insists on his moral and spiritual inability. This is admittedly the most difficult branch of our subject. Those who have ever devoted much study to this theme have uniformly recognized that the harmonizing of God's sovereignty with man's responsibility is the Gordian knot of theology. The main difficulty encountered is to define the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Many have summarily disposed of the difficulty by denying its existence. A certain class of theologians in their anxiety to maintain man's responsibility have magnified it beyond all due proportions until God's sovereignty has been lost sight of and in not a few instances flatly denied. Others have acknowledged that the Scriptures present both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man but affirm that in our present finite condition and with our limited knowledge it is impossible to reconcile the two truths though it is the bounden duty of the believer to receive both. The present writer believes that it has been too readily assumed that the Scriptures themselves do not reveal the several points which show the conciliation of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. While perhaps the Word of God does not clear up all the mystery and this is said with reserve it does throw much light upon the problem and it seems to us more honoring to God and His Word to prayerfully search the Scriptures for the completer solution of the difficulty and even though others have thus far searched in vain that ought only to drive us more and more to our knees. God has been pleased to reveal many things out of His Word during the last century which were hidden from earlier students who then dare affirm that there is not much to be learned yet respecting our inquiry. As we have said above our chief difficulty is to determine the meeting point of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. To many it has seemed that for God to assert His sovereignty for Him to put forth His power and exert a direct influence upon man for Him to do anything more than warn or invite would be to interfere with man's freedom, destroy his responsibility and reduce him to a machine. It is said indeed to find one like the late Dr. Pearson whose writings are generally so scriptural and helpful saying it is a tremendous thought that even God Himself cannot control my moral frame or constrain my moral choice. He cannot prevent me defying and denying Him and would not exercise His power in such directions if He could and could not if He would. A spiritual clinique it is sadder still to discover that many other respected and loved brethren are giving expression to the same sentiments sad because directly at variance with the Holy Scriptures. It is our desire to face honestly the difficulties involved and to examine them carefully in what light God has been pleased to grant us. The chief difficulties might be expressed thus. First, how is it possible for God to so bring His power to bear upon man that they are prevented from doing what they desire to do and impelled to do other things they do not desire to and yet to preserve their responsibility. Second, how can the sinner be held responsible for the doing of what he is unable to do and how can he be justly condemned for not doing what he could not do. Third, how is it possible for God to decree that men shall commit certain sins, hold them responsible in the committal of them and judge them guilty because they committed them. Fourth, how can the sinner be held responsible to receive Christ and be damned for rejecting Him when God had foreordained him to condemnation. We shall now deal with these several problems in the above order. May the Holy Spirit Himself be our teacher so that in His light we may see light. One, how is it possible for God to so bring His power to bear upon men that they are prevented from doing what they desire to do and impelled to do other things they do not desire to do and yet to preserve their responsibility. It would seem that if God put forth His power and exerted a direct influence upon men, their freedom would be interfered with. It would appear that if God did anything more than warn and invite men, their responsibility would be infringed upon. We are told that God must not coerce man still less compel him or otherwise He would be reduced to a machine. This sounds very plausible. It appears to be good philosophy and based upon sound reasoning. It has been almost universally accepted as an axiom in ethics. Nevertheless, it is refuted by Scripture. Let us turn first to Genesis 26. And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart, for I also withheld thee from sinning against me. Therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. It is argued almost universally that God must not interfere with man's liberty, that He must not coerce or compel him lest he be reduced to a machine. But the above Scripture proves, unmistakably proves that it is not impossible for man to exert his power upon man without destroying his responsibility. Here is a case where God did exert His power, restrict man's freedom and prevent him from doing that which He otherwise would have done. Returning from this Scripture, let us note how it throws light upon the case of the first man. Would-be philosophers who sought to be wise above that which was written have argued that God could not have prevented Adam's fall without reducing him to a mere automaton. They tell us constantly that God must not coerce or compel His creatures, otherwise He would destroy their accountability. But the answer to all such philosophizing is that Scripture records a number of instances where we are expressly told God did prevent certain of His creatures from sinning, both against Himself and against His people, in view of which all men's reasonings are utterly worthless. If God could withhold Abimelech from sinning against Him, then why was He unable to do the same with Adam? Should someone ask, then, why did not God do so? We might return the question by asking, why did not God withhold Satan from falling, or why did not God withhold the Kaiser from starting the war? The usual reply is, as we have said, God could not without interfering with man's freedom and reducing him to a machine. But the case of Abimelech proves conclusively that such a reply is untenable and erroneous. We might add wicked and blasphemous, for who are we to limit the Most High? How dare any finite creature take it upon Him to say what the Almighty can and cannot do? Should we be pressed further as to why God refused to exercise His power and prevent Adam's fall? We should say, because Adam's fall better served His own wise and blessed purpose. Among other things, it provided an opportunity to demonstrate that where sin had abounded, grace could much more abound. But we might ask further, why did God place in the garden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, when He foresaw that man would disobey His prohibition and eat of it? For Mark, it was God and not Satan who made that tree. Should someone respond, then is God the author of sin? We would have to ask, in turn, what is meant by author? Plainly, it was God's will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission, for God only permits that which He has purposed. But we leave now the origin of sin, insisting once more, however, that God could have withheld Adam from sinning without destroying His responsibility. The case of Abimelech does not stand alone. Another illustration of the same principle is seen in the history of Balaam, already noticed in the last chapter, but concerning which a further word is in place. Balak, the Moabite, sent for this heathen prophet to curse Israel. A handsome reward was offered for his services, and a careful reading of Numbers 22 through 24 will show that Balaam was willing, yea, anxious to accept Balaak's offer, and thus sin against God and His people. But divine power withheld him, mark his own admission, and Balaam said unto Balaak, Lo, I am come unto thee. Have I now any power at all to say anything? The word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak. Numbers 22, 38. Again, after Balaak had remonstrated with Balaam, we read, He answered and said, Must I not take heed to speak that which the Lord hath put in my mouth? Behold, I have received commandment to bless, and He hath blessed, and I cannot reverse it. Chapter 23, verses 12 and 20. Surely these verses show us God's power and Balaam's powerlessness, man's will frustrated and God's will performed, but was Balaam's freedom or responsibility destroyed? Certainly not, as we shall yet seek to show. One more illustration. And the fear of the Lord fell upon all the kingdoms of the lands that were round about Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat. Chronicles 17, 10. The implication here is clear. Had not the fear of the Lord fallen upon these kingdoms, they would have made war upon Judah. God's restraining power alone prevented them. Had their own will been allowed to act, war would have been the consequence. Thus we see, the Scripture teaches that God withholds nations as well as individuals, and that when it pleases Him to do so, He interposes and prevents war. Compare further. Genesis 35, 5. The question which now demands our consideration is, how is it possible for God to withhold men from sinning, and yet not to interfere with their liberty and responsibility? A question which so many say is incapable of solution. In our present finite condition, this question causes us to ask, in what does moral freedom, real moral freedom, consist? We answer, it is the being delivered from the bondage of sin. The more any soul is emancipated from the thralldom of sin, the more does he enter into a state of freedom. If the sum therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free. Indeed, John 8, 36. In the above instances, God withheld Abimelech, Balaam, and the heathen kingdoms from sinning, and therefore we affirm that He did not in any wise interfere with their real freedom. The nearer a soul approximates to sinlessness, the nearer does he approach to God's holiness. Scripture tells us that God cannot he, and that he cannot be tempted. But is he any the less free, because he cannot do that which is evil? Surely not. Then is it not evident that the more man is raised up to God, and the more he be withheld from sinning, the greater is his real freedom. A pertinent example setting forth the meeting place of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility as it relates to the question of moral freedom is found in connection with the giving to us of the Holy Scriptures. In the communication of His word, God was pleased to employ human instruments, and in the using of them He did not reduce them to mere mechanical amanuenses. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, Greek, of its own origination. For the prophecy came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1, 20 and 21. Here we have man's responsibility and God's sovereignty placed in juxtaposition. These holy men were moved, Greek, borne along by the Holy Spirit. Yet was not their moral responsibility disturbed, nor their freedom impaired. God enlightened their minds, enkindled their hearts, revealed to them His truth, and so controlled them that error on their part was by Him made impossible as they communicated His mind and will to men. But what was it that might have, would have caused error had not God controlled as He did the instruments which He employed? The answer is sin, the sin which was in them. But as we have seen, the holding in check of sin, the preventing of the exercise of the carnal mind in these holy men, was not a destroying of their freedom, rather was it the inducting of them into real freedom. A final word should be added here concerning the nature of true liberty. There are three chief things concerning which men in general greatly err, misery and happiness, folly and wisdom, bondage and liberty. The world counts none miserable but the afflicted and none happy but the prosperous, because they judge by the present ease of the flesh. Again, the world is pleased with a false show of wisdom, which is foolishness with God, neglecting that which makes wise unto salvation. As to liberty, men would be at their own disposal and live as they please. They suppose the only true liberty is to be at the command and under the control of none above themselves, and live according to their heart's desire. But this is a fraud and bondage of the worst kind. True liberty is not the power to live as we please, but to live as we ought. Hence the only one who has ever trod this earth since Adam's fall, that has enjoyed perfect freedom, was the man Christ Jesus, the holy servant of God, whose meat it ever was to do the will of the Father. We now turn to consider the question, too. How can the sinner be held responsible for the doing of what he is unable to do? And how can he be justly condemned for not doing what he could not do? As a creature, the natural man is responsible to love, obey, and serve God. As a sinner, he is responsible to repent and believe the gospel. But at the outset, we are confronted with the fact that natural man is unable to love and serve God, and that the sinner of himself cannot repent and believe. First, let us prove what we have just said. We begin by quoting and considering John 6, 44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. The heart of the natural man, every man, is so desperately wicked that if he is left to himself, he will never come to Christ. This statement would not be questioned if the full force of the words coming to Christ were properly apprehended. We shall therefore digress a little at this point to define and consider what is implied and involved in the words no man can come to me. Compare John 5, 40. Ye will not come to me that ye might have life. For the sinner to come to Christ, that he might have life, is for him to realize the awful danger of his situation. It is for him to see that the sword of divine justice is suspended over his head. It is to awaken to the fact that there is but a step betwixt him and death, and that after death is the judgment. And in consequence of this discovery, it is for him to be in real earnest to escape, and in such earnestness that he shall flee from the wrath to come, cry unto God for mercy, and agonize to enter in at the straight gate. To come to Christ for life is for the sinner to feel and acknowledge that he is utterly destitute of any claim upon God's favor. It is to see himself as without strength, lost and undone. It is to admit that he is deserving of nothing but eternal death, thus taking side with God against himself. It is for him to cast himself into the dust before God and humbly sue for divine mercy. To come to Christ for life is for the sinner to abandon his own righteousness and be ready to be made the righteousness of God in Christ. It is to disown his own wisdom and be guided by his. It is to repudiate his own will and be ruled by his. It is to unreservedly receive the Lord Jesus as his Lord and Savior, his All in All. Such in part and in brief is what is implied and involved in coming to Christ. But is the sinner willing to take such an attitude before God? No. For in the first place he does not realize the danger of his situation and in consequence is not in real earnest after his escape. Instead men are for the most part at ease and apart from the operations of the Holy Spirit whenever they are disturbed by the alarms of conscience or the dispensations of providence they flee to any other refuge but Christ. In the second place they will not acknowledge that all their righteousnesses are as filthy rags but like the Pharisee will thank God they are not as the publican. And in the third place they are not ready to receive Christ as their Lord and Savior for they are unwilling to part with their idols they had rather hazard their souls eternal welfare than give them up. Hence we say that left to himself the natural man is so depraved at heart that he cannot come to Christ. The words of our Lord quoted above by no means stand alone quite a number of scriptures set forth the moral and spiritual inability of the natural man. In Joshua 24 19 we read and Joshua said unto the people ye cannot serve the Lord for he is an holy God. To the Pharisees Christ said why do ye not understand my speech even because ye cannot hear my word. John 8 43 and again the carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Romans 8 7 and 8. But now the question returns how can God hold the sinner responsible for failing to do what he is unable to do? This necessitates a careful definition of terms just what is meant by unable and cannot. Now let it be clearly understood that when we speak of the sinner's inability we do not mean that if men desired to come to Christ they lacked the necessary power to carry out their desire. No the fact is that the sinner's inability or absence of power is itself due to lack of willingness to come to Christ and this lack of willingness is the fruit of a depraved heart. It is of first importance that we distinguish between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. For example we read but a hijaw could not see for his eyes were set by reason of his age. 1st Kings 14 4 and again the man rode hard to bring it to the land but they could not for the sea wrought and was tempestuous against them. Jonah 1 13 In both of these passages the words could not refer to natural inability but when we read and when his brethren saw that their father loved him, Joseph more than all his brethren they hated him and could not speak peaceably unto him. Genesis 37 4 it is clearly moral inability that is in view. They did not lack the natural ability to speak peaceably unto him for they were not dumb. Why then was it that they could not speak peaceably unto him? The answer is given in the same verse. It was because they hated him. Again in 2 Peter 2 14 we read of a certain class of wicked men having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin. Here again it is moral inability that is in view. Why is it that these men cannot cease from sin? The answer is because their eyes are full of adultery. So Romans 8 8. They that are in the flesh cannot please God. Here is spiritual inability. Why is it that the natural man cannot please God? Because he is alienated from the life of God. Ephesians 4 18. No man can choose that from which his heart is averse. O generation of the vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? Matthew 12 34 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. John 6 44. Here again it is moral and spiritual inability which is before us. Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is drawn? The answer is because his wicked heart loves sin and hates Christ. We trust we have made it clear that the Scriptures distinguish sharply between natural ability and moral and spiritual inability. Surely all can see the difference between the blindness of Barthimaeus who was ardently desirous of receiving his sight and the Pharisees whose eyes were closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and should understand with their heart and should be converted. Matthew 13 15 But should it be said the natural man could come to Christ if he wished to do so, we answer Ah, but in that if lies the hinge of the whole matter. The inability of the sinner consists of the want of moral power to wish and will so as to actually perform. What we have contended for above is of first importance. Upon the distinction between the sinner's natural ability and his moral and spiritual inability rests his responsibility. The depravity of the human heart does not destroy man's accountability to God. So far from this being the case, the very moral inability of the sinner only serves to increase his guilt. This is easily proven by a reference to the scriptures cited above. We read that Joseph's brethren could not speak peaceably unto him, and why? It was because they hated him. But was this moral inability of theirs any excuse? Surely not. In this, very moral inability consisted the greatness of their sin. So of those concerning whom it is said, they cannot cease from sin. 2 Peter 2.14 And why? Because their eyes were full of adultery. But that only made their case worse. It was a real fact that they could not cease from sin, yet this did not excuse them. It only made their sin greater. Should some sinner here object, I cannot help being born into this world with a depraved heart, and therefore I am not responsible for my moral and spiritual inability, which accrue from it. The reply would be, responsibility and culpability. He in the indulgence of the depraved propensity, the free indulgence, for God does not force any to sin. Men might pity me, but they certainly would not excuse me if I gave vent to a fiery temper, and then sought to extenuate myself on the ground of having inherited that temper from my parents. Their own common sense is sufficient to guide their judgment in such a case as this. They would argue, I was responsible to restrain my temper. Why then cavil against this same principle in the case supposed above? Out of mine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant, surely applies here. What would the reader say to a man who had robbed him, and who later argued in defense, I can't help being a thief, that is my nature? Surely the reply would be, then the penitentiary is the proper place for that man. What then shall be said to the one who argues that he cannot help following the bent of his sinful heart? Surely that the lake of fire is where such an one must go. Did ever a murderer plead that he hated his victim so much that he could not go near him without slaying him? Would not that only magnify the enormity of his crime? Then what of the one who loves sin so much that he is at enmity against God? The fact of man's responsibility is almost universally acknowledged. It is inherent in man's moral nature. It is not only taught in Scripture, but witnessed to by the natural conscience. The basis or ground of human responsibility is human ability. What is implied by this general term ability must now be defined. Perhaps a concrete example will be more easily grasped by the average reader than an abstract argument. Suppose a man owed me $100 and could find plenty of money for his own pleasures, but none for me, yet pleaded that he was unable to pay me. What would I say? I would say that the only ability that was lacking was an honest heart. But would it not be an unfair construction of my words if a friend of my dishonest debtor should say I had stated that an honest heart was that which constituted the ability to pay the debt? No, I would reply, the ability of my debtor lies in the power of his hand to write me a check, and this he has. But what is lacking is an honest principle. It is his power to write me a check which makes him responsible to do so, and the fact that he lacks an honest heart does not destroy his account ability. The terms of this example are suggested by an illustration used by the late Andrew Fuller. Now, in like manner, the sinner, while altogether lacking in moral and spiritual ability, does nevertheless possess natural ability, and this it is which renders him accountable unto God. Men have the same natural faculties to love God with as they have to hate Him with, the same hearts to believe with as to disbelieve, and it is their failure to love and believe which constitutes their guilt. An idiot or an infant is not personally responsible to God because lacking in natural ability, but the normal man who is endowed with rationality, who is gifted with a conscience that is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, who is able to weigh eternal issues, is a responsible being, and it is because he does possess these very faculties that he will yet have to give an account of himself to God. Romans 14, 12. We say again that the above distinction between the natural ability and the moral and spiritual inability of the sinner is of prime importance. By nature, he possesses natural ability, but lacks moral and spiritual ability. The fact that he does not possess the latter does not destroy his responsibility because his responsibility rests upon the fact that he does possess the former. Let me illustrate again. Here are two men guilty of theft. The first is an idiot. The second perfectly sane, but the offspring of criminal parents. No just judge would sentence the former, but every right-minded judge would latter, even though the second of these thieves possessed a vitiated moral nature inherited from criminal parents. That would not excuse him, providing he was a normal, rational being. Here then is the ground of human accountability. The possession of rationality plus the gift of conscience. It is because the sinner is endowed with these natural faculties that he is a responsible creature. Because he does not use his natural powers for God's glory constitutes his guilt. How can it remain consistent with his mercy that God should require the debt of obedience from him that is not able to pay? In addition to what has been said above, it should be pointed out that God has not lost his right, even though man has lost his power. The creature's impotence does not cancel his obligation. A drunken servant is a servant still, and it is contrary to all sound reasoning to argue that his master loses his rights through his servant's default. Moreover, it is of first importance that we should ever bear in mind that God contracted with us in Adam, who was our federal head and representative, and in him God gave us a power which we lost through our first parent's fall. But though our power is gone, nevertheless God may justly demand his due of obedience and of service. We turn now to Ponder 3. How is it possible for God to decree that man should commit certain sins, hold them responsible in the committal of them, and judge them guilty because they committed them? Let us now consider the extreme case of Judas. We hold that it is clear from Scripture that God decreed from all eternity that Judas should betray the Lord Jesus. If anyone should challenge this statement, we refer him to the prophecy of Zechariah through whom God declared that his son should be sold for thirty pieces of silver. Zechariah 11-12. As we have said in earlier pages, in prophecy God makes known what will be, and in making known what will be, he is but revealing to us what he has ordained shall be. That Judas was the one through whom the prophecy of Zechariah was fulfilled needs not to be argued, but now the question we have to face is was Judas a responsible agent in fulfilling this decree of God? We reply that he was. Responsibility attaches mainly to the motive and intention of the one committing the act. This is recognized on every hand. Human law distinguishes between a blow inflicted by accident without evil design and a blow delivered with malice aforethought. Apply then the same principle to the case of Judas. What was the design of his heart when he bargained with the priests? Manifestly he had no conscious desire to fulfill any decree of God though unknown to himself he was actually doing so. On the contrary, his intention was evil only and therefore though God had decreed and directed his act, nevertheless his own evil intention rendered him justly guilty as he afterwards acknowledged himself. I have betrayed innocent blood. This Reformation audio track is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. SWRB makes thousands of classic Reformation resources available, free and for sale, in audio, video and printed formats. It is likely that the sermon or book that you just listened to is also available on cassette or video or as a printed book or booklet. Our many free resources as well as our complete mail order catalog containing thousands of classic and contemporary Puritan and Reform books, tapes and videos at great discounts is on the web at www.swrb.com We can also be reached by email at swrb at swrb dot com by phone at 780 450 3730 by fax at 780 468 1096 or by mail at 4710 37A Edmonton Edmonton Alberta Canada T6L 3T5 You may also request a free printed catalog. And remember that John Calvin in defending the Reformation's regulative principle of worship or what is sometimes called the scriptural law of worship, commenting on the words of God, which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart. From his commentary on Jeremiah 731 writes, God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions than that they are not commanded by God. For when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to his commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the papists, all those fictitious modes of worship, in which they absurdly exercise themselves, would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying his word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The prophet's words then are very important, when he says that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind. As though he had said that men assume too much wisdom when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew.