051. CHAPTER 23 - ATONEMENT - ITS EXTENT - ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION - SPECIAL SCRIPTURES EXAMI...
CHAPTER 23 - ATONEMENT - ITS EXTENT - ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION - SPECIAL SCRIPTURES EXAMINED. IN the preceding chapter, we progressed so far in the investigation of the subject of election, predestination, etc., as, first, to exhibit a brief view of the Calvinistic scheme, as set forth in the acknowledged standards of several Calvinistic Churches; and, secondly, to present what we conceive to be the scriptural account of this subject.
We now proceed to examine the Scripture testimony which Calvinists have alleged in support of their doctrine. To enter upon an exegetical discussion of every passage which they have quoted upon this subject, would be unnecessarily tedious; as the entire weight of their argument may be fully seen by an attention to those few prominent texts, which they almost invariably quote when they touch the Arminian controversy, and on which they mainly rely. Here the Bible of the Calvinist will almost instinctively open upon the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans.
I. We notice their argument from what is said in reference to Jacob and Esau.
Romans 9:11-16 : “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done either good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said unto her, (Rebecca,) The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”
After the unanswerable refutations of the Calvinistic construction of this passage, furnished by such commentators and divines as Whitby, Taylor, Benson, Fletcher, Adam Clarke, etc., it is a little surprising that any intelligent Calvinist should continue to argue from it in favor of absolute personal election. This is more especially remarkable, as several of the most acute divines of the Calvinistic school have been impelled by candor to adopt the Arminian interpretation of the passage now before us - among whom we might mention Dr. Macknight of Scotland, and Professor Stuart of Andover. The latter, however, appears not so fully to renounce the Calvinistic interpretation as the former; but that he yields one of the principal points, may be seen from the following remarks on the thirteenth verse: “The precedence, then, of Jacob is established by this declaration; but in what respect? In a temporal one, it would seem, so far as this instance is concerned. That the whole refers to the bestowment of temporal blessings, and the withholding of them, is clear, not only from this passage, but from comparing Genesis 25:23; Genesis 27:27, etc. As to emishsa, its meaning here is rather privative than positive. When the Hebrews compared a stronger affection with a weaker one, they called the first love, and the other hatred.”
After referring such as desire a critical and minute exposition of this passage to the commentators already mentioned, we may observe that the argument for personal and absolute election to eternal life, from this passage, is entirely dependent upon two positions, which, if they can be fairly proved, will establish the Calvinistic view; but a failure to establish either of them, will be fatal to the whole scheme. These positions are, 1. That the election here spoken of referred to Jacob and Esau personally and individually.
2. That it referred to the absolute determination of their eternal destiny.
Now, if either of these positions is seen to be untenable, notwithstanding the other may be established, it will inevitably follow that the election here presented to view, so far from establishing the Calvinistic doctrine, tends directly to its overthrow. How much more signal, then, must be the defeat of the Calvinist, if, upon examination, both these principles are found to be not only unsustained, but positively disproved! Such, we think, will be the result of an impartial investigation.
1. Then we inquire whether this election referred to Jacob and Esau personally and individually. That it did not, but was intended to apply to two nations - the posterity of Jacob, (the Jews,) and the posterity of Esau, (the Edomites) - is evident,
1. From the language of the entire passage, of which the apostle, in accordance with his manner, only quotes as much as was essential to his argument. The passage is recorded in Genesis 25:23 : “And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.” So far, then, from the apostle referring to Jacob and Esau personally, we here have the direct Scripture to prove that although the names of Jacob and Esau are used, it is in a representative sense. “Two nations,” or “two manner of people,” were the subject of the prophecy. Concerning them, and not concerning Jacob and Esau, personally, it was said, “the elder shall serve the younger,” and that “one shall be stronger than the other.”
2. As it is contrary to the language of the prophecy that this passage should apply personally to Jacob and Esau, so it is contrary to the truth of history. Esau never did “serve” Jacob personally.
Again: from the first chapter of Malachi, it may be clearly seen that the nations of the Israelites and Edomites, and not the persons of Jacob and Esau, were the subject of the prophecy. “The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, (Israel, not Jacob,) saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom (not Esau personally) saith, We are impoverished,” etc. Thus we see, from the Scriptures themselves, that the passage under consideration determines nothing in reference to Jacob and Esau, personally. Hence there can be no ground here for establishing the doctrine of personal and unconditional election.
2. We inquire whether this election referred to the determination of the eternal destiny of the persons concerned.
Now, even if it could be made appear (which we have just seen to be contrary to Scripture) that Jacob and Esau are here personally referred to, Calvinism can derive no support, unless it be also shown that this election and reprobation, or this loving of Jacob and hating of Esau, referred to their eternal destiny. That it had no reference whatever to their eternal destiny, either as individuals or nations, but that it related entirely to temporal blessings, we might almost leave to the testimony of the most intelligent Calvinistic commentators themselves. The decision of Professor Stuart on this point we have already seen. His words are, “The whole refers to the bestowment of temporal blessings, and the withholding of them,” and he directly sanctions the interpretation that the term emishsa, in the phrase, “Esau have I hated,” implies not positive hatred, but only a less degree of love.
Macknight says: “What God’s hatred of Esau was, is declared in the words of the prophecy which immediately follow, namely, ‘and laid his mountains waste.’” As Macknight was himself a Calvinist, and taught the doctrine of absolute and personal election, though he acknowledged it was not contained in the scripture before us, his testimony may, on that account, be deemed the more valuable; hence we quote from him the following acute observations:
“1. It is neither said, nor is it true, of Jacob and Esau personally, that the ‘elder served the younger.’ This is only true of their posterity.
2. Though Esau had served Jacob personally, and had been inferior to him in worldly greatness, it would have been no proof at all of Jacob’s election to eternal life, nor of Esau’s reprobation. As little was the subjection of the Edomites to the Israelites in David’s days a proof of the election and reprobation of their progenitors.
3. The apostle’s professed purpose in this discourse being to show that an election bestowed on Jacob’s posterity by God’s free gift might either be taken from them, or others might be admitted to share therein with them, it is evidently not an election to eternal life, which is never taken away, but an election to external privileges only.
4. This being an election of the whole posterity of Jacob, and a reprobation of the whole descendants of Esau, it can only mean that the nation which was to spring from Esau should be subdued by the nation which was to spring from Jacob; and that it should not, like the nations springing from Jacob, be the Church and people of God, nor be entitled to the possession of Canaan, nor give birth to the seed in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed.
5. The circumstance of Esau’s being elder than Jacob was very probably taken notice of, to show that Jacob’s election was contrary to the right of primogeniture, because this circumstance proved it to be from pure favor. But if his election had been to eternal life, the circumstance of his age ought not to have been mentioned, because it had no relation to that matter whatever.”
We deem it useless to detain upon this subject. From what has been said, we arrive at the conclusion - 1. That this election was not personal, but national.
2. That it related, not to eternal life, but to temporal blessings. The opposite of both these positions is essential to Calvinistic election; therefore it follows that this stereotyped argument of Calvinism, from the mooted case of “Jacob and Esau,” so far from being sustained by Scripture, has been doubly confuted.
II. The second argument which we shall notice, as relied upon by the Calvinist, is based upon what is said in reference to Pharaoh, and the “potter and the clay.” The passage is recorded in Romans 9:17-24 : ‘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. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 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? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering 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, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” That the argument attempted to be based upon this passage may be clearly seen in all its force, and fairly tested in as small a compass as practicable, we propose, first, to specify the several points insisted upon by Calvinists, the establishment of some, or all, of which is essential to the support of their doctrine, and then to examine the evidence by which these several points are assumed to be established. These points are -
1. That Pharaoh is given as an instance of unconditional and eternal reprobation, being created for the express purpose that the “power of God” might “be shown” in his eternal destruction.
2. That the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was effected by a direct influence, or positive influx, from God.
3. That in the reference to the parable of “the potter,” the making of the “one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor,” is designed to represent the right of God to create one man expressly for eternal life, and another for eternal destruction.
4. That the “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” are designed to represent persons expressly and designedly created and prepared by the Almighty for eternal death.
5. That the object of the apostle, in referring to the case of Pharaoh, and to the parable of the “potter and the clay,” was to illustrate the doctrine of personal, unconditional, and eternal election and reprobation. Were it necessary, it might easily be shown by a reference to numerous Calvinistic commentators and divines, that the above is a fair presentation of the positions assumed by them, when they would establish their system by a reference to the passage in question; but this, we presume, cannot be denied; for it must be perceptible to every reflecting mind that, so far as reliance is placed on the scripture now before us, the peculiar dogmas of Calvinism must stand or fall with the above propositions. And we may now be permitted in candor to say, that it will not be a difficult task to show that the above propositions resemble far more a gross perversion than a fair exposition of Scripture. This we shall endeavor to evince, by examining each proposition separately. But, first, we would frankly acknowledge that all the above propositions have not been fairly avowed by all who have been considered Calvinists; but at the same time it must be conceded, on the other hand, that so far as any of them have been renounced, all dependence for the support of Calvinism from that source has also been relinquished.
Some Calvinistic writers have based the defense of their system on one, some on another, and some on several, of the above positions; but seldom, if ever, has the same writer expressly avowed his reliance on all of them. Still it should be borne in mind, that if Calvinism can derive any support whatever from the passage in question, it must be by a reliance on some of the positions above presented; consequently, if we can show that none of them can fairly be sustained, this stronghold of Calvinistic defense will be demolished. But to proceed -
I. The position is assumed that Pharaoh is given as an instance of unconditional and eternal reprobation, being created for the express purpose that the “power of God” might be shown in his eternal destruction.
If this proposition can be sustained by a fair exegesis of the Scripture, then it would seem to follow that, as Pharaoh had been created expressly and designedly for eternal death, it would not be inconsistent with the divine attributes to suppose that the reprobate in general were created for the same purpose; and this, we confess, would go far toward establishing Calvinistic reprobation. What, we ask, is the evidence here relied upon? It is this sentence: “Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee.” Now, before this passage can be made to sustain the proposition in question, it must be shown that the phrase, “I have raised thee up,” implies, I have created thee; and that the phrase, “that I might show my power in thee,” implies that I might eternally punish thee. That neither of these positions can be sustained, we shall immediately show.
(1) The word here rendered “raised up,” is exhgeira, from exegeirw. That this word does not mean to create, but merely to rouse up, or to excite, or (as seems most in accordance with diethrhqhv, the word used in the Septuagint) to make to stand, or to preserve, is a point conceded even by Macknight and Prof. Stuart. The following is the language of the latter, in loc.: “What, then, is the sense of exegeirw, as employed in Hellenistic Greek? In the Septuagint it is a very common word, being used some seventy times. In none of these cases does it mean to create, to produce, to raise up, in the sense of bringing into being, etc.; so that those who construe exhgeira se, I have created thee, or brought thee into existence, do that which is contrary to the Hellenistic usus loquendi.”
Whitby translates the sentence thus: “I have made thee to stand.” The Targum of B. Uziel: “I have kept thee alive.” Macknight favors the sense of “having preserved thee” from the plagues, etc. He paraphrases the words as follows: “Even for this same purpose I have raised thee and thy people to great celebrity, and have upheld you during the former plagues, that, in punishing you, I might show my power, and that my name, as the righteous Governor of the world, might be published through all the earth.”
If, in addition to the literal import of the original word, we take into consideration the connection of the passage in the ninth of Exodus, from which the apostle quotes, we may readily be convinced that there was no reference here to the creation of Pharaoh for a specific purpose. The allusion evidently was to the preservation and prosperity of the Egyptian king and people, and especially to their deliverance from the plagues with which they had been visited. These had not only been brought upon them by the hand of God, but the same hand was alone able to remove them. And but for the “long-suffering” of God, the king and people of Egypt must have perished under the first plagues; but God bore with them: he “made them to stand;” he preserved them for farther trial, and for a farther display of his glory. So that, without a violent and palpable perversion of the sense, there is not found the least shadow of ground for the notion that Pharaoh was here said to be created for a special purpose. There is nothing here said or implied on that subject whatever. Hence we discover that the first branch of this position of Calvinism, so far from being sustained, is clearly refuted. It cannot be argued from the case of Pharaoh, that the reprobate were created with the express design that they might be unconditionally destroyed; and any thing short of this, fails in sustaining the Calvinistic scheme.
(2) The second branch of the position is, that the phrase, “that I might show my power in thee,” implies, that I might eternally punish thee. This the language of the text itself contradicts. The import of the phrase, “that I might show my power in thee,” is clearly inferable from what immediately follows, which is exegetical of, or consequent upon, what precedes. It does not follow, and that thou mightest be eternally punished; but the language is, “and that my name might be declared in all the earth.” The grand design of the Almighty, then, was not a display of his power in the eternal destruction of Pharaoh, but a declaration of his own name “throughout all the earth.” For the accomplishment of this “purpose” of mercy, Pharaoh and his people were raised up and preserved, as suitable instruments. And this purpose God would accomplish through them, whether they repented and submitted to his authority or not. Had Pharaoh not hardened his heart, but yielded to the evidence of the miracles and power of the true God, he might have been the honored instrument of proclaiming, from his commanding position on the throne of Egypt, that the God of Israel was the true God, and that therefore all nations and people should honor and serve him; and in this way the “power of God might have been declared,” and some knowledge of the true worship disseminated among all the Egyptians, and all the nations with whom they had intercourse. But as the king of Egypt voluntarily resisted the truth, refused to acknowledge the dominion of Jehovah, and impiously demanded, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go?” God determined to show forth his power in Pharaoh, by sending plague after plague, and still affording him longer trial and additional testimony, that the fame of these wonders, and of the signal overthrow of the Egyptians, might be spread far and wide among the nations. But in all this, there is not one word, either said or implied, about Pharaoh’s being created, or even “raised up,” expressly that God might display his power in his eternal destruction. The design was, according to the plain declaration of Scripture, not that God “might show his power” in the eternal destruction of Pharaoh, but in the “declaring of his own name throughout all the earth.” Thus we see, then, that this first position of Calvinism, in neither of its branches, finds any support in the Bible; but, on the contrary, is fairly disproved.
2. The second position of Calvinism is, that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was effected by a direct influence, or positive influx, from God. This position, on which is based the strength of the Calvinistic argument from the case of Pharaoh, has been assumed, but never has been proved. Indeed, the evidence is very plain to the contrary. There are two senses in which God may be said to harden the hearts of men; and it is probable that this took place, in both senses, with Pharaoh and the Egyptians.
(1) The first is, by sending them mercies, with the express design that they may be melted into contrition and led to reformation; the natural consequence of which, however, will be, that if they resist these mercies, they will be left harder and more obdurate than they were before. In this sense it is that the gospel is said to be (2 Corinthians 2:16) “in them that perish, a savor of death unto death,” and (Romans 2:4-5) the ungodly are said to “despise the riches of the goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering” of God, and “after their hardness and impenitent hearts,” to treasure up “wrath against the day of wrath.” And in the same sense the Lord “endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath” - that is, he waited long with the Egyptians, and delivered and “raised them up” from many plagues, that they might see “his power,” and be led to own his dominion.
(2) The second sense in which God may be said to harden the hearts of men is that of a judicial dereliction, or a righteous withholding, of his restraining grace. This takes place after men have had a fair trial been faithfully warned, and long borne with; and is not effected by any active exertion of divine power upon them, or any positive infusion of evil into them, but results necessarily from God’s ceasing to send them his prophets and ministers, and withholding from them his Holy Spirit. The remarks of Macknight on this subject deserve special regard:
“If this is understood of nations, God’s hardening them means his allowing them an opportunity of hardening themselves, by exercising patience and long-suffering toward them. This was the way God hardened Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Exodus 7:3 : ‘I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.’ For when God removed the plagues one after another, the Egyptians took occasion from that respite to harden their own hearts. So it is said, Exodus 8:15 : ‘But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had said. (See Exodus 8:32.)
“If the expression, ‘whom he will he hardeneth,’ is understood of individuals, it does not mean that God hardens their hearts by any positive exertions of his power upon them, but that by his not executing sentence against their evil works speedily, he allows them to go on in their wickedness, whereby they harden themselves. And when they have proceeded to a certain length, he withholds the warnings of prophets and righteous men, and even withdraws his Spirit from them, according to what he declared concerning the antediluvians, Genesis 6:3 : ‘My Spirit shall not always strive with man.’ The examples of Jacob and Esau, and of the Israelites and the Egyptians, are very properly appealed to by the apostle on this occasion, to show that, without injustice, God might punish the Israelites for their disobedience, by casting them off, and make the believing Gentiles his people in their place.”
Hence it is clearly evident that from the Scriptures we have no ground for believing that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh by a direct influence, and positive infusion, of evil; and therefore the second position of Calvinism falls to the ground.
3. The third position of the Calvinist, which we proposed examining, is that in the reference to the “parable of the potter,” the making of “one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor,” is designed to represent the right of God to create one man expressly for eternal life, and another for eternal destruction. This position contains the very essence of the Calvinistic peculiarity. If it can be sustained, there is nothing left between Calvinism and Arminianism worthy of contention; but if it cannot be sustained, then it will follow that this hackneyed argument of the Calvinist, drawn from the parable of “the potter and the clay,” is “weighed in the balances and found wanting.” Now we think that it is only necessary to examine carefully the entire passage in Jeremiah, from which the apostle quotes, in order to see that it has no reference whatever to the eternal destiny of individuals. The whole passage reads thus: - Jeremiah 18:1-10 : “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” In regard to this parable, we may observe -
(1) It has no reference to the creation of individual persons, but to God’s sovereign dominion over nations or kingdoms. God does not say, “at what time I shall speak concerning” an individual person; but “concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom.”
(2) It has no reference to the eternal destiny of men; but to the overthrow or prosperity of kingdoms in this world. The language is, “to pull down and to destroy” - that is, to overturn the polity, or destroy the power, of a nation as such; or “to build and to plant” - that is, to establish, strengthen, and prosper, an earthly kingdom.
(3) This calamity and prosperity are not presented as the result of the mere arbitrary will of God, absolute and unconditional, but it is clearly expressed that they are conditional - subject to be influenced by the conduct of the nations referred to.
(4) It is not intimated that the potter made even the “vessel unto dishonor,” expressly to destroy it. The reverse of this is most certainly true. Although all vessels are not designed for a purpose of equal honor or importance, yet none are formed merely to be “dashed in pieces.”
(5) The potter did not change his design in making the vessel, so as to form it “another vessel,” which we may suppose to be a “vessel unto dishonor,” till it first “was marred” in his hand. It failed to answer his first intention.
(6) This whole parable was designed to express God’s sovereign right to deal with the Jews as seemed good in his sight. Not to prosper or destroy them according to an arbitrary will; but to govern them according to the fixed principles of his righteous administration. To permit them to be carried into captivity, when they became wicked and rebellious, and to restore them to their own land and to their former prosperity when they repented.
(7) As this parable was originally used to justify the dealings of God in reference to the Jewish nation in the days of Jeremiah, so it was strikingly illustrative of the justice of God in destroying the idolatrous Pharaoh and the Egyptians after having long borne with them, and it was also well adapted to show the propriety of God’s rejecting the unbelieving Jews from being his Church, and receiving into its pale the believing Gentiles, in the apostle’s day; and this was the very subject which the apostle was considering. From all this, we arrive at the conclusion that, so far from this parable being designed to teach an unconditional and absolute election and reprobation of individuals to eternal life and eternal death, it is only intended to exhibit a conditional election and reprobation of nations, in reference to the present world. And thus we perceive that this third position of Calvinism, in reference to the subject before us, is plainly contradicted by the Scriptures.
4. The fourth position of Calvinism which we proposed to consider is, that the “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” are designed to represent persons expressly and designedly created and prepared by the Almighty for eternal death. The comment of Calvinists generally on this subject is, that God not only determined from all eternity to sentence a portion of mankind to eternal death, but that he preordained the means as well as the end. Hence those who by the decree of God are designed for eternal death, are, by the same decree inevitably operating in their case, “fitted,” or prepared, for their unalterable and unavoidable destiny. The manner in which many Calvinists speak in reference to this dark feature of their system is a little curious. Some, like the bold and independent Calvin himself, look it full in the face, and frankly confess that “it is a horrible decree, whilst others conduct themselves warily, and neither directly avow, nor plainly deny, the consequences of their doctrine; but at the same time indirectly evince that even in this matter they are Calvinists still. The controversy in reference to the phrase, “fitted to destruction, regards the agency by which this is effected. On this passage, Prof. Stuart remarks: “Now, whether they came to be fitted merely by their own act, or whether there was some agency on the part of God which brought them to be fitted, the text of itself does not here declare. But in our text how can we avoid comparing kathrtismena, in verse 22, with a prohtoimase, in verse 23? The two verses are counterparts and antithetic; and accordingly we have skeuh orghv, to which skeuh eleouv corresponds, and so eiv apwleian and eiv doxan. How can we help concluding, then, that kathrtismena and a prohtoimase correspond in the way of antithesis?”
Although there is here apparent some reserve in the mode of expression, yet the clear inference is, that according to Prof. Stuart, there is a perfect antithesis between the “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” in the 22d verse, and “the vessels of mercy prepared unto glory,” in the 23d verse; and that God exercised a similar agency in both cases - that is, that God not only directly prepares his people for eternal life, but that he directly fitteth the wicked for eternal death.
We may suppose, however, that if the learned Professor had not felt some concern for the cause of Calvinism, he might have told us that it is not necessary in every case where antithesis is used, that the figure should be applied to every part of the subject. There may be antithesis between the “vessels of wrath” and the “vessels of mercy;” but it does not follow that both must have been fitted, or prepared, in the same way. Indeed, the very opposite of this is fairly inferable from the language itself. The “vessels of mercy” are said to have been “afore prepared unto glory” by the Lord; but the “vessels of wrath” are merely said to be “fitted unto destruction.” It is not said by whom. Hence the plain inference is, that as God is expressly said to be the agent in preparing “the vessels of mercy,” had he also been the agent in fitting the “vessels of wrath,” a similar form of speech would have been used in both cases. To suppose that God exercises a direct agency in “fitting” men for destruction, is contrary to the scope of this passage, which declares that he “endured with much long-suffering” these “vessels of wrath;” and also at war with the general tenor of Scripture, which, in the language of Mr. Fletcher, represents “salvation to be of God, and damnation to be of ourselves.” Hence we find that this fourth position of Calvinism is Contrary to the Scriptures.
5. The last position of the Calvinist which we proposed to consider is, that the object of the apostle, in referring to the case of Pharaoh and to the parable of the potter and the clay, was to illustrate the doctrine of personal, unconditional, and eternal election and reprobation. That the apostle had quite a different object in view, we think is plain from the whole connection. It was national and not personal election and reprobation of which he was speaking. This is evident from the 24th verse of the chapter which we have been considering: “Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.” The object of the apostle was to silence the objecting Jew, and to justify the divine procedure in the establishing of the gospel Church, of believers, whether Jews or Gentiles. Hence it is plain that the entire argument of the Calvinist, for personal and unconditional election and reprobation, from the Epistle to the Romans, is founded on a misapplication of the whole subject - applying what is said of nations to individuals, and what is said in reference to time to eternity. The apostle continues the discussion of this national election throughout the tenth and eleventh chapters; but to follow him farther we deem unnecessary, as the principles already presented and established will sufficiently illustrate the whole subject. We thought it only necessary to examine the passage mainly relied upon by the Calvinist; and the result is, that we find therein no support for Calvinistic election and reprobation.
III. The third and last Scripture argument relied upon by the Calvinist, which we shall here notice, is founded upon what is said in reference to predestination, etc., in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the eighth chapter to the Romans. The passages read as follows: - Ephesians 1:4-5; Ephesians 1:11-12 : “According as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will… In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will; that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.” Romans 8:28-30 : “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
Perhaps no word in the whole range of theology has given rise to a greater degree of intricate speculation and ardent controversy than the word predestinate, which occurs in the above passages. The words here rendered “did predestinate,” and, “having predestinated,” in the Greek Testament, are prowrise and proorisav, and are derived from pro, before, and orizw, I define, finish, bound, or terminate. Hence we have the English word horizon, from orov, a boundary, or limit. The literal import of predestinate is therefore to define, describe, limit, or fix the boundaries beforehand. In the language of Calvinists, predestination is a term of more extensive import than election. By the latter, they understand the divine selection from all eternity of a portion of mankind for eternal life, by the former, they understand not only the predetermination of the elect for eternal life, but also the preordaining of the reprobate to eternal death; and in a still wider sense, they understand it to mean God’s eternal decree, by which he “hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.” The Arminians, although they discard predestination in the absolute and unconditional sense of the Calvinists, yet acknowledge that there is a sense in which it is a true doctrine of revelation.
1. They understand by predestination, the divine predetermination in reference to nations. Thus they hold that the Jews were predestinated to be the Church of God, under the Old Testament dispensation, and that, under the gospel, it was predestinated that the Church should consist of both Jews and Gentiles, admitted on the condition of faith.
2. By predestination, they understand the divine predetermination to save the believing character, as declared in the gospel.
3. By predestination, they understand the divine predetermination to save all persons who will believe the gospel, upon the condition of persevering faith.
Here, then, are three different senses in which Arminians admit that predestination may scripturally be understood. The first relates to nations, or bodies of people; the second relates to certain characters; and the third relates to individuals conditionally. As the last is the only view of the subject in which the eternal destiny of individual persons is embraced, and as that is conditional, it follows that predestination, in any of these acceptations, is essentially variant from the Calvinistic theory The three essential attributes of Calvinistic predestination are, 1. That it relate to individual persons.
2. That it be unconditional - not dependent on the foresight of faith and obedience, or unbelief and disobedience.
3. That it relate to the eternal destiny of men.
Now it will be perceived that all these attributes meet in no one of the views presented as held by Arminians. National predestination, and that which relates to certain characters, may be unconditional; but here the eternal destiny of individuals is not fixed. Personal predestination, which alone fixes the destiny of individuals, is always understood by the Arminian as being conditional - founded upon the divine prescience, which fully contemplates and strictly regards the condition of faith and good works, as presented in the gospel.
We will now inquire, briefly, whether the Calvinistic or the Arminian view of this subject accords with the above quoted scriptures.
1. We notice the passage in Ephesians. This Dr. Macknight, a Calvinist, acknowledges is a national predestination, (though he still contends for a higher meaning.) And that it refers especially to the calling of the Gentiles to the fellowship of the gospel, is evident from the entire scope of the Epistle. In continuation of the same subject, the apostle proceeds, and in the third chapter speaks of the “mystery” that was “made known to him by revelation,” and this he defines to be “that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel;” and he adds that this is “according to the eternal purpose which he (God) purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here, then, is the plain comment by the apostle himself, on the import of the “predestination,” and “the mystery of God’s will,” according to his good pleasure, purposed in himself, which were spoken of in the first chapter. If it still be contended as Macknight thinks it should, that there is a reference here to personal predestination to eternal life, the fact is not denied; although the national predestination of the Gentiles is the point directly referred to by the apostle, yet this always contemplated, and was designed to promote, the eternal salvation of individuals. But the moment we contemplate it as personal predestination to eternal life, it becomes conditional. The Gentiles were only embraced in this sense as they became believers, and upon the condition of their faith. This is plain from the 12th and 13th verses of the first chapter: “That we should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth.” So we perceive that in no sense in which the subject can be viewed, is any countenance here given to the Calvinistic version of predestination.
2. Equally difficult will it be found to construe the passage in the eighth chapter to the Romans, according to Calvinistic principles.
Arminians have differed somewhat in the construction of this passage. Dr. Clarke seems to confine it to the national call of the Gentiles to gospel fellowship: in this, he followed the comment of Dr. Taylor. But Mr. Watson thinks personal election to eternal life is here embraced. We think that both national and personal predestination are included.
1. The Gentiles, as a people, because God foreknew that they would believe and embrace the gospel, were predestinated to the enjoyment of its privileges.
2. Genuine and persevering believers, because God foreknew them as such, were predestinated to be “conformed to the image of his Son.” They were “called, justified, and glorified.” But all this was conducted according to the regular gospel plan. Their predestination was founded upon the foreknowledge of God, which contemplated them as complying with the condition of faith as laid down in the gospel. Here, then, we can see no ground at all for the Calvinistic notion of absolute and unconditional election or predestination to eternal life, irrespective of faith or good works.
We have now briefly examined those texts which have ever been considered as the strongholds of Calvinism, and think we have clearly shown that they are susceptible of a different and much more consistent interpretation. There are other passages which they frequently urge in support of their doctrine; but we deem it useless to detain longer. We have selected the principal and most difficult; and from the solutions already furnished, the proper explanation of others will be readily presented, in perfect consistency with a possible salvation for all mankind.