Chapter 8
GOD’S
SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY
"So then every one of us
shall give account of himself to God"
Romans 14:12
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 unsound doctrine which we now hear on every
hand is the direct and logical outcome of man’s repudiation of God’s expressed
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" (Rev. 3:17).
They prate 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 Tim. 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 to flatly 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[1] 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 complete 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
present 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 sad indeed to find one like the late Dr.
Pierson—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 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? 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 adjudge 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.
I. 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 IMPELL 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 wore 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
20:6—"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 God
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.
Ere turning 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 recent 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 22-24 will show that Balaam was
willing, yea, anxious, to accept Balak’s offer and thus sin against God and His
people. But Divine power "withheld" him. Mark his own admission,
"And Balaam said unto Balak, 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" (Num. 22:38). Again, after Balak 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"
(23:12, 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" (2
Chron. 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 that Scripture teaches that God "withholds" nations as well as
individuals, and that when it pleaseth 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 Son 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 anywise 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 lie,"
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 moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet.
1:20, 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 thralldom 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.
II. 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 the 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 bath 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"—cf. 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; is for him to see that the sword of Divine justice is
suspended over his head; 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, 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 "strait
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; is to see himself as "without strength," lost
and undone; 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 Saviour and Lord, as 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
Saviour and Lord, for they are unwilling to part with their idols: they had rather
hazard their soul’s 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 a 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" (Rom. 8:7, 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 lack 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 Abijah could not see; for
his eyes were set by reason of his age" (1 Kings 14:4); and again, "The men rowed 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" (Gen. 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 were full
of adultery. So of Romans 8:8.—"They that are in the flesh cannot please
God": here it is spiritual inability. Why is it that the natural man
"cannot please God"? Because he is "alienated from the life of
God" (Eph. 4:18). No man can choose that from which his heart is
averse—"O generation of vipers how can ye, being evil,
speak good things?" (Matt. 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 sign and hates Christ.
We trust we have made it clear
that the Scriptures distinguish sharply between natural inability and moral and
spiritual inability. Surely all can see the difference between the blindness of
Bartimeus, 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" (Matt. 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 Pet.
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 the 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 lie in
the indulgence of the depraved propensities, 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 thine 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 defence, "I cannot 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 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 accountability.[2]
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 which they
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 account of himself to God" (Rom.
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 the 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 be gone, nevertheless, God may justly
demand His due of obedience and of service.
We turn now to ponder,
III. How is it possible for
God to DECREE that men SHOULD commit certain sins, hold them RESPONSIBLE in the
committal of them, and adjudge 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" (Zech. 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 this 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 fulfil 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." It was the same with the Crucifixion of Christ. Scripture plainly
declares that He was "delivered up by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23), and that though "the kings of the
earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and
against His Christ" yet, notwithstanding, it was but "for to do
whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be
done" (Acts 4:26, 28); which verses teach very much more than a bare
permission by God, declaring, as they do, that the Crucifixion and all its
details had been decreed by God. Yet, nevertheless, it was by "wicked
hands," not merely "human hands", that our Lord was
"crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23). "Wicked" because the
intention, of His crucifiers was only evil.
But it might be objected that,
if God had decreed that Judas should betray Christ, and that the Jews and Gentiles
should crucify Him, they could not do otherwise, and therefore, they were not
responsible for their intentions. The answer is, God had decreed that they
should perform the acts they did, but in the actual perpetration of these deeds they were justly guilty, because their own
purposes in the doing of them was evil only. Let it be emphatically said that
God does not produce the sinful dispositions of any of His creatures, though He
does restrain and direct them to the accomplishing of His own purposes. Hence
He is neither the Author nor the Approver of sin. This distinction was
expressed thus by Augustine: "That men sin proceeds
from themselves; that in sinning they perform this or that action, is from the
power of God who divideth the darkness according to His pleasure." Thus it
is written, "A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his
steps" (Prov. 16:9). What we would here insist upon is, that God’s decrees
are not the necessitating cause of the sins of men, but the fore-determined and
prescribed boundings and directings of men’s sinful acts.
In connection with the betrayal of Christ, God did not decree that He should be
sold by one of His creatures and then take up a good man, instill an evil
desire into his heart and thus force him to perform the terrible deed in order
to execute His decree. No; not so do the Scriptures represent it. Instead, God
decreed the act and selected the one who was to perform the
act, but He did not make him evil in order that he should perform the deed; on
the contrary, the betrayer was a "devil" at the time the Lord Jesus
chose him as one of the twelve (John 6:70), and in the exercise and
manifestation of his own devilry God simply directed his actions, actions which
were perfectly agreeable to his own vile heart, and performed with the most
wicked intentions. Thus it was with the Crucifixion.
IV. How can the sinner be held
responsible to receive Christ, and be damned for rejecting Him, when God
FOREORDAINED him TO condemnation?
Really,
this question has been covered in what has been said under the other queries,
but for the benefit of those who are exercised upon this point we give it a
separate, though brief, examination. In considering the above difficulty the
following points should be carefully weighed:
In the
first place, no sinner, while he is in this world, knows for certain, nor can
he know, that he is a "vessel of wrath fitted to destruction". This
belongs to the hidden counsels of God, to which he has not access. God’s secret
will is no business of his; God’s revealed will (in the Word) is the standard
of human responsibility. And God’s revealed will is plain. Each sinner is among
those whom God now "commandeth to repent" (Acts
17:30). Each sinner who hears the Gospel is "commanded" to believe (1
John 3:23). And all who do truly repent and believe are saved. Therefore, is
every sinner responsible to repent and believe.
In the second place, it is the
duty of every sinner to search the Scriptures which "are able
to make wise unto salvation" (2 Tim. 3:15). It is the sinner’s
"duty" because the Son of God has commanded him to search the
Scriptures (John 5:39). If he searches them with a heart that is seeking after
God, then does he put himself in the way where God is accustomed to meet with sinners.
Upon this point the Puritan Manton has written very helpfully.
"I cannot say to every
one that ploweth, infallibly, that he shall have a good crop; but this I can
say to him, It is God’s use to bless the diligent and provident. I cannot say
to every one that desireth posterity, Marry, and you shall have children; I
cannot say infallibly to him that goeth forth to battle for his country’s good
that he shall have victory and success; but I can say, as
Joab, (1 Chron. 19:13) ‘Be of good courage, and let us behave ourselves
valiantly for our people and the cities of our God, and let the Lord do what is
good in His sight’. I cannot say infallibly you shall have grace; but I can say
to every one, Let him use the means, and leave the success of his labor and his
own salvation to the will and good pleasure of God. I cannot say this infallibly, for there is no obligation upon God. And
still this work is made the fruit of God’s will and mere arbitrary
dispensation—‘Of His own will begat He us by the Word of Truth’ (James 1:18).
Let us do what God hath commanded, and let God do what He will. And I need not
say so; for the whole world in all their actings are and should be guided by
this principle. Let us do our duty, and refer the success to
God, Whose ordinary practice it is to meet with the creature that seeketh after
Him; yea, He is with us already; this earnest importunity in the use of means
proceeding from the earnest impression of His grace. And therefore, since He is
beforehand with us, and bath not showed any backwardness to our good, we have
no reason to despair of His goodness and mercy, but rather to hope for the
best" (Vol. XXI, page 312).
God has been pleased to give
to men the Holy Scriptures which "testify" of the Saviour, and make
known the way of salvation. Every sinner has the same natural faculties for the
reading of the Bible as he has for the reading of the newspaper; and if he is illiterate or blind so that he is unable to read, he
has the same mouth with which to ask a friend to read the Bible to him, as he
has to inquire concerning other matters. If, then, God has given to men His
Word, and in that Word has made known the way of salvation, and if men are
commanded to search those Scriptures which are able to make them wise unto
salvation, and they refuse to do so, then is it plain that
they are justly censurable, that their blood lies on their own heads, and that
God can righteously cast them into the Lake of Fire.
In the third place, should it
be objected, Admitting all you have said above, Is it not still a fact that
each of the non-elect is unable to repent and believe? The reply is, Yes. Of every sinner it is a fact that, of himself, he cannot
come to Christ. And from God’s side the "cannot" is absolute. But we
are now dealing with the responsibility of the sinner (the sinner foreordained
to condemnation, though he knows it not), and from the human side the inability
of the sinner is a moral one, as previously pointed out. Moreover, it needs to
be borne in mind that in addition to the moral inability of
the sinner there is a voluntary inability, too. The sinner must be regarded not
only as impotent to do good, but as delighting in evil. From the human side,
then, the "cannot" is a will not; it is a voluntary impotence. Man’s
impotence lies in his obstinacy. Hence, is everyone left "without
excuse", And hence, is God "clear" when He judgeth (Ps. 51:4),
and righteous in damning all who "love darkness rather
than light".
That God does require what is
beyond our own power to render is clear from many scriptures. God gave the Law
to Israel at Sinai and demanded a full compliance with it, and solemnly pointed
out what would be the consequences of their disobedience
(see Deut. 28). But will any readers be so foolish as to affirm that Israel
were capable of fully obeying the Law! If they do, we would refer them to
Romans 8:3 where we are expressly told, "For what the law could not do, in
that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh".
Come now to the New Testament.
Take such passages as Matthew 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your
Father which is in heaven is perfect". 1 Corinthians 15:34, "Awake to
righteousness and sin not". 1 John 2:1, "My little children, these things
I write unto you, that ye sin not". Will any reader say he is capable in
himself of complying with these demands of God? If so, it
is useless for us to argue with him.
But now the question arises,
Why has God demanded of man that which he is incapable of performing? The first
answer is, Because God refuses to lower His standard to the level of our sinful
infirmities. Being perfect, God must set a perfect standard
before us. Still we must ask, if man is incapable of measuring up to God’s
standard, wherein lies his responsibility? Difficult as seems the problem it is
nevertheless capable of a simple and satisfactory solution.
Man is responsible to (1st)
acknowledge before God his inability, and (2nd) to cry unto
Him for enabling grace. Surely this will be admitted by every Christian reader.
It is my bounden duty to own before God my ignorance, my weakness, my
sinfulness, my impotence to comply with His holy and just requirements. It is
also my bounden duty, as well as blessed privilege, to earnestly beseech God to
give me the wisdom, strength, grace, which will enable me to do that which is
pleasing in His sight; to ask Him to work in me "both
to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
In like manner, the sinner,
every sinner, is responsible to call upon the Lord. Of himself he can neither
repent nor believe. He can neither come to Christ, nor turn from
his sins. God tells him so; and his first duty is to "set to his seal that
God is true". His second duty is to cry unto God for His enabling power—to
ask God in mercy to overcome his enmity, and "draw" him to Christ; to
bestow upon him the gifts of repentance and faith. If he will do so, sincerely
from the heart, then most surely God will respond to his appeal, for it is
written—"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the
Lord shall be saved" (Rom. 10:13).
Suppose, I had slipped on the
icy pavement, late at night, and had broken my hip. I am unable to arise; if I
remain on the ground, I must freeze to death. What, then, ought Ito do? If I am
determined to perish, I shall lie there silent—but I shall be to blame for such a course. If I am anxious
to be rescued, I shall lift up
my voice and cry for help. So the sinner, though unable of himself to rise and
take the first step toward Christ, is responsible to cry to God, and if he does
(from the heart), there is a Deliverer to hand. God is "not far from every one of us" (Acts 17:27); yea, "He is a very
present help in trouble" (Ps. 46:1). But if the sinner refuses to cry unto
the Lord, if he is determined to perish, then his blood is on his own head, and
his "damnation is just" (Rom. 3:8).
A brief word now concerning
the extent of human responsibility.
It is obvious that the measure
of human responsibility varies in different cases, and is greater or less with
particular individuals. The standard of measurement was given in the Saviour’s
words, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be
required" (Luke 12:48). Surely God did not require as much from those living in Old Testament times as He does from those who have
been born during the Christian dispensation. Surely God will not require as
much from those who lived during the ‘dark ages,’ when the Scriptures were
accessible to but a few, as He will from those of this generation, when
practically every family in the land own a copy of His Word for themselves. In
the same way, God will not demand from the heathen what He
will from those in Christendom. The heathen will not perish because they have
not believed in Christ, but because they failed to live up to the light which
they did have—the testimony of God in nature and conscience.
To sum up. The fact of man’s
responsibility rests upon his natural ability, is witnessed
to by conscience, and is insisted on throughout the Scriptures. The ground of
man’s responsibility is that he is a rational creature capable of weighing
eternal issues, and that he possesses a written Revelation from God, in which
his relationship with and duty toward his Creator is plainly defined. The
measure of responsibility varies in different individuals, being determined by
the degree of light each has enjoyed from God. The problem
of human responsibility receives at least a partial solution in the Holy
Scriptures, and it is our solemn obligation as well as privilege to search them
prayerfully and carefully for further light, looking to the Holy Spirit to
guide us "into all truth." It is written, "The meek will He
guide in judgment: and the meek will He teach His way" (Ps. 25:9).
In conclusion it remains to
point out that it is the responsibility of every man to use the means which God
has placed to his hand. An attitude of fatalistic inertia, because I know that
God has irrevocably decreed whatsoever comes to pass, is to make a sinful and
hurtful use of what God has revealed for the comfort of my heart. The same God who has decreed that a certain end shall be
accomplished, has also decreed that that end shall be attained through and as
the result of His own appointed means. God does not disdain the use of means,
nor must I. For example: God has decreed that "while the earth remaineth,
seed-time and harvest. . . shall not cease" (Gen. 8:22); but that does not
mean man’s ploughing of the ground and sowing of the seed
are needless. No; God moves men to do those very things, blesses their labours,
and so fulfills His own ordination. In like manner, God has, from the
beginning, chosen a people unto salvation; but that does not mean there is no
need for evangelists to preach the Gospel, or for sinners to believe it; it is
by such means that His eternal counsels are effectuated.
To argue that, because God has
irrevocably determined the eternal destiny of every man, relieves us of all
responsibility for any concern about our souls, or any diligent use of the
means to salvation, would be on a par with refusing to perform my temporal
duties because God has fixed my earthly lot. And that He has is clear from Acts 17:26, Job 7:1; 14:5, etc. If then the foreordination of
God may consist with the respective activities of man in present concerns, why
not in the future? What God has joined together we must not cut asunder.
Whether we can or cannot see the link which unites the one to the other, our
duty is plain: "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those
things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children
forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29).
In Acts 27:22 God made known
that He had ordained the temporal preservation of all who accompanied Paul in
the ship; yet the apostle did not hesitate to say, "Except these abide in
the ship, ye cannot be saved" (v. 31); God appointed that means
for the execution of what He had decreed. From 2 Kings 20 we learn that God was
absolutely resolved to add fifteen years to Hezekiah’s life, yet he must take a
lump of figs and lay it on his boil! Paul knew that he was eternally secure in
the hand of Christ (John 10:28), yet he "kept under his body" (1 Cor.
9:26). The apostle John assured those to whom he wrote, "Ye shall abide in
Him", yet in the very next verse he exhorted them,
"And now, little children, abide in Him" (1 John 2:27, 28). It is
only by taking heed to this vital principle, that we are responsible to use the
means of God’s appointing, that we shall be enabled to preserve the balance of
Truth, and be saved from a paralyzing fatalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES:
[1]
Gordian knot: 1. An intricate knot tied by King Gordius of Phrygia and cut by
Alexander the Great with his sword after hearing an oracle promise that whoever
could undo it would be the next ruler of Asia. 2. An exceedingly complicated
problem of deadlock (The American Heritage Dictionary, ed).
[2] The
terms of this example are suggested by an illustration used by the late Andrew
Fuller.