"Predestination" by George Henry Lang
This extract is the entire Chapter IV of G. H. Lang's book "WORLD CHAOS: ITS ROOT AND REMEDY" (1950). It is reproduced here by the kind permission of the publisher, Dr. Louis Schoettle. Books by G. H. Lang are available from Schoettle Publishing Company, Inc.
FORTY-FIVE YEARS AGO J. O. WEST WAS RECTOR OF ST. PHILIP and St. Jacob Without, Bristol. In his parish was the headquarters of the Secularist Society, militant atheists, followers of Charles Bradlaugh. He invited these to an open conference and asked me to support him. One question asked was, Does not foreknowledge involve foreordination? Presumably the questioner had in mind the idea that one could not positively foreknow that an event would take place unless one had the power and intention to bring it to pass. Had that been admitted he would doubtless have urged that, by consequence, God was the author of sin and the responsible actor therein.
I answered that foreknowledge does not necessarily imply foreordination; for one may get to know that a burglar intends to raid his house, but he does not therefore foreordain the deed. The chairman, an atheist, remarked: "But your own Book is against you" and referred to Romans 8: 29, 30, where it is stated of God that:
For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren: and whom He foreordained, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.
In reply I pointed out that this does not say "Whom He foreknew He therefore foreordained," as if the one followed automatically from the other, but it says "He also foreordained," which shows that the foreordination was additional to the foreknowledge, and therefore distinct from it. Here the matter was left.
Upon this topic, Rosenberg wrote these strong words:
In the Jewish-Syrian-Romish thought-world, which tears apart Personality [i.e. human personality] and God and sets them at enmity, the idea of "foreordination" became an insane conception which humiliated mankind to the level of born slaves (M. 395).
Passing by the bitterness of this statement, as an honest man and a Christian I must own to some sympathy with those opponents of Christianity who are stumbled by this dogma of predestination. The fault initially is with those theologians who have declared it in hard terms and drawn from those terms hard and awful inferences not taught in the Word of God.
Augustine said:
God worketh all things in us; rewarding His own good, and punishing His own evil.
This seems to imply that moral evil is wrought by God, and then He punishes the one through whom He works it. This statement by Augustine is quoted by E. T. Vaughan in the footnote to page 61 of his 1823 translation of Luther's Bondage of the Will. He does not give the reference. In The Enchiridion, ch. C. Augustine speaks of:
The supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice he has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace.
Calvin wrote:
Whom therefore God hath created unto the shame of life and destruction of death, that they should be instruments of His wrath and examples of His severity: from them, that they may come to their end, sometime He taketh away the power to hear His Word, and sometime, by the preaching of it, He more blindeth and amazeth them (Institutes, Bk. iii; chap. 24:12)
Luther wrote:
...We do everything by God's alone will, and by a necessity that is laid upon us...So that all things still happen by necessity, as it respects us...since then God moves and actuates all things in all things, it cannot but be that He also moves and acts in Satan and in the wicked...(they are) hurried along by this impulse of the divine omnipotency...Hence it arises, that the wicked man cannot but go astray and commit sin continually; inasmuch as being seized and urged by the power of God, he is not allowed to remain idle; but wills, desires, acts, just according to what he is (Bondage of the Will, 251, 252, 266, 267; ed. E. T.Vaughan, 1823).
Luther's editor just named added to page 222 this footnote:
In asserting that the kingdom of hell has earned, and is earning, its subjects through a power which God has given to the devil, I would be understood to intimate that the devil could neither be, nor continue to be, without the will of God; and that hell is filled through his agency; by which, in perfect consistency with all creation relations and obligations, ruin was originally brought upon man; and by which he [the devil] secures and retains to himself that spoil, which it is the Father's good pleasure that he should carry off, to HIS glory [i.e., the glory of God the Father].
Samuel Rutherford was indeed a rare and faithful disciple of Christ, yet in the 234th letter of Bonar's edition of his Letters there is a dreadful example of Calvinistic theology. The lengthy argument may be thus summarized:
God's will is essentially holy and just...that God saith to reprobates, "Believe in Christ (Who hath not died for your salvation), and ye shall be saved," is just and right...God hath obliged, hard and fast, all the reprobates of the visible church to believe this promise, "He that believeth shall be saved" - and yet in God's decree and secret intention there is no salvation at all decreed and intended to reprobates...Hence because there is malice in reprobates, and contempt of Christ, guilty they are, and justice hath law against them, and (which is the mystery) they cannot come up to Christ, because He died not for them. [The italics are mine.]
This line of thought culminates in the doctrine of reprobation, that is, that God by His sovereign uncontrolled fiat did from before creation determine that some should be rescued from sin and damnation, and for these, the elect, and these alone, it was intended that Christ should die and so redeem them; but the rest were fore-ordained to be damned, and it is not the willingness or intention of God to save them; yet He commands them to repent and to believe, though He knows they cannot do so and that He does not intend to grant them the grace to do so, and then He sends them to hell for their disobedience.
Wholly as I reject Christian Science, I am not surprised that Mary Baker Eddy as a girl was shocked and repelled by this hard dogma. Newman I regard as one of the most hurtful men of a century ago, but agree with his description of predestination to eternal death as a "detestable doctrine" (Apologia, ed. Dent. 31).
This attitude is not the result of the prepossession of my own mind or feeling. To allow these to determine an issue would be simply an example of that rationalism or humanism which I reject equally. If the Word of God taught this dogma, it would be for me to accept it; but, as I read that Word, its teaching is to the exact contrary.
Through an ancient prophet, six centuries B.C., God Himself declares, and on oath:
As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?...Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, saith the Lord Jehovah; and not rather that he should return from his way, and live? (Ezekiel 33 : 11; 18 : 23).
Since God would prefer, yea, yearns for the sparing of the wicked from temporal death, how can He have already, by set design, have predetermined his eternal death?
The Son of God declared unequivocally that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3 : 16). To say that this means the world of the elect only is doing violence to the words in themselves and to their plain sense. Christ's apostles understood them in that plain sense. John writes of Him that "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (1 John 2 : 2). Here the "our" refers to the writer and those addressed, that is, such as had already accepted Jesus Christ the Righteous One as Savior and Advocate. Outside of this circle of believers were all the rest of mankind, the world. If it be argued that this also means the world of the elect, it must be asked whether that limit can be imposed upon John's further words in the same Letter (ch. 5 : 19): "We know that we are of God and the whole world lieth in the Evil One." Here is the same distinction between the company of the believers and the rest of mankind, and it is out of the question to say that the whole world of the elect are those in the sphere of Satan. The elect are the "we" of this passage, not the world.
But how luminous is Paul's exhortation that prayers are to be offered for all men, including pagan kings and officials (I Timothy 2: 1-7). On what ground is prayer to include all men? Because "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior God who would have all men to be saved." The emphasis here is on the "all." "Who all men desires () to be saved." And so intense is this Divine desire that "Christ Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all." Here the "all" comes thrice, and as the first time it includes specifically the godless, so it must each other time.
Such is the testimony of the whole Bible. It presents God as lamenting over His foes (Ezekiel 27 : 1, 2; 28 : 12); as earnestly desiring them to gather under His protection as chicks under the hen (Matthew 23:37); as caring, providing, chastening, pleading, warning; and as waiting patiently through centuries, yea, millenniums, in hope that some more of them will repent and accept pardon (2 Peter 3 : 9, 15). For judgment is to Him a "strange work, His strange act" (Isaiah 28 : 21), whereas "in mercy He delighteth" (Micah 7: 18); and to the former He proceeds only when mercy is rejected, will no more be useful, and can no longer be permissible in justice.
The dogma of reprobation postulates that all this yearning, this patience and pleading with the wicked, is superficial, merely apparent, not real; that behind this external and sustained attitude there stands the real God Who has predestined the godless to be damned. There is in truth little to distinguish this Being from the Fates of pagan philosophy. For they also allow to man that measure of prosperity and pleasure they enjoy for a time, they also permit affairs to run on quietly for lengthy periods; but at last their inexorable and hard decrees blast their helpless objects.
Let us look more narrowly at Romans 8 : 29, 30 above quoted: "Whom He foreknew He also foreordained."
The translators of the Authorized Version reveal, it would seem, doctrinal prejudice by their rendering "He also did predestinate." For this unjustified word they went back to Catholic Versions, the Rheims and the Vulgate, which have predestinavit, whereas the earlier English Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale had the softer and more accurate word "preordain." This is the more noticeable in the case of Wycliffe seeing that he was translating from the Vulgate. These later translators had reason for forsaking the Latin, and its restoration by the Authorized Version has had the disastrous effect of fixing in the mind of the English reader the fatalistic notion so foreign to Scripture. If the Authorized translators had understood Isaiah 65: 11 considered in the last chapter, they might have felt the wrongness of introducing the idea of destiny seeing that God had solemnly condemned it. Their change is the less excusable seeing that in 1 Corinthians 2 : 7 they translate the same word by ordain.
A thing may be foreordained without it being irreversible, for it may be ordained on conditions, which not being fulfilled the ordination lapses. And this is the case here. The passage is speaking of those foreordained being "conformed to the image of God's Son [and] glorified." Now but a few sentences earlier (Romans 8 : 17) it had been written that the children of God are "heirs indeed () of God, but () joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him." In his last letter which we have the same writer states the same condition as attaching to the same prospect of sharing the glory of Christ (2 Timothy 2: 10-13). He speaks there of the elect obtaining "the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory," and he adds that "Faithful is the saying: For if we died with him, we shall also live with Him: if we endure, we shall also reign with Him: if we deny Him, He also will deny us."
This conditional element has been given little, if any, weight in Calvinistic treatment of this theme and is often strongly repudiated. Yet it is quite evidently present, and it rules out completely every attempt to attach a fatalistic sense to these passages. God's foreordination was conditioned by something that He foreknew, and by its very terms is conditioned by the response of man.
The Calvinistic zeal in this controversy has been gendered largely by the desire to maintain the truth that the sinner justified in Christ by faith stands justified before the law of God for ever; that the new life he receives in Christ is eternal life and is non-forfeitable. This doctrine the opposite school, known as Arminian, denies, and asserts the Scripture to teach that salvation is, in possibility entirely forfeitable by misconduct.
Certainly, the Calvinistic doctrine on this point is the plain meaning of various passages; as when Christ declared of His sheep, who follow Him, that "they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, Who hath given them unto Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and My Father are one" (John 10: 27-29). Or when Paul concludes the most full and elaborate of all statements of Christian doctrine by declaring his reasoned persuasion that nothing conceivable "shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8 : 39).
It is obvious that there can be no contradictions in writings in any real sense God-given. The plain meaning of God-breathed words must hold, and I personally accept unhesitatingly the plain meaning of the passages just quoted, that justification and life eternal are un-forfeitable, being "free gifts" (Romans 3 : 24; 6: 23), free, that is, of conditions, absolute gifts.
The passages mostly used by Arminians to maintain the contrary view do not deal with the matter of the judicial standing of the sinner in law. As to eternal salvation Christ stated positively of the man who attends to His word, and believes the Father Who sent the Son and spoke through Him, that such an one "cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life" (John 5 : 24). Later utterances must be read in harmony with this, as can readily be done. The branch can be cut out of the vine, and wither and be burned up. But the theme in John 15 is not life eternal, but fruitfulness in present life, that interior union with Christ which is a benefit distinct from and additional to both justification in Him before the law and the gift of life in Him. This heart communion can be lost and its fruit cease.
This topic was opened, and I think sufficiently proved, in my book Firstborn Sons, their Rights and Risks, now out of print.
What I would add here is the view that in like manner the passages as to election and preordination do not apply to the question of salvation, but rather to the prospects of persons already saved.
Romans 8 : 29, 30. Foreordination is unto conformity to the image of God's Son, to being glorified. The word "image" means external likeness to another object: "he is the image of his father." A king may pardon a criminal and so grant further life; but it does not follow, it is no necessity, that he shall bring this former rebel into intimate public association with the Heir Apparent and attire him in splendor suitable to that association.
Romans 9 : 23: "vessels of mercy which He afore-prepared unto glory," not merely vessels redeemed unto exemption from perdition.
Hebrews 2 : 10. God is "bringing many sons unto glory"; the thought being that from among the vast multitude of His children some are being trained, educated, developed into grownup sons, who can be heirs of the honors and authority of the Son of God in the kingdom of the Father.
Romans 8 : 19-25. The same conception is found here. The passage speaks of "the revealing," the unveiling, "of the sons of God" as being their "adoption." This word does not refer to the new birth into the family of God, but to the final possible outcome of that birth. The Roman noble could choose any one of his male children to be heir to his titles and estates. This youth he led before the Senate and declared in due form that this was his son and heir. Thereupon the robe of a youth was removed and he was given that of manhood. Similarly, it is not yet made manifest to the universe which of the family of God will reign with Christ; but when the present body of humiliation gives place to a body like unto the glorified body of Christ it will be made clear: "When Christ [Who is already] our life shall be manifested, then shall we also be manifested with Him in glory (Colossians 3 : 4).
1 Peter 1 : 2; 5 : 10. We are indeed "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," but this is not applied to exemption from hell, but is "in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ"; that is, unto priestly office, priestly nearness to God, and priestly service; for it was at the consecration of the priests that the water was used first and the blood was sprinkled later (Leviticus 8), whereas in the restoration of the leper from banishment to fellowship the blood was applied first and the washings followed (Leviticus 14). And this sanctification and obedience are not stated here as precedent to salvation from doom, but the call of God in view is "unto His eternal glory in Christ." These promises of sharing the glory of God Himself are indeed "precious and exceeding great," and it is in view of this "abundant entrance into the eternal kingdom" that Christians are strongly urged "to give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1 : 1-11); or, though eternal life is for ever secure, the glory of the priesthood and kingship in the kingdom may be forfeited.
1 Thessalonians 2 : 12. Thus Paul also exhorted Christians "to walk worthily of God," not because their justification in Christ was contingent upon their walk, but because God "calleth you into His own kingdom and glory."
Ephesians 1 : 4, 5. It is to the same effect that we are told that "God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blemish before Him," where katenopion () means under His eye, in His immediate presence not in some remoter region of the kingdom, as is the lot of the majority of a monarch's subjects. Therefore this statement continues: "having foreordained us unto adoption as sons," in the full sense above exhibited.
Colossian 1 : 12. The same sense attaches to Paul's words written at the same period as the last mentioned passage, that God "made us capable (**, see Alford here) with a view to sharing the inheritance of the saints in the light"- "the light," i.e. as above, in the immediate presence of God Who is light.
It is evident that in these places where God's choice (election) and call are in view the connection is not with deliverance from perdition, but with the prospects of the saved. We think it is thus everywhere in Scripture. Yet it will be objected that Acts 13: 48 says that "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" and that therefore eternal salvation is a matter of foreordination. But the word here used, tasso, is not the same word as foreordain, and it has here rather the sense of being disposed towards a certain course or act; so that as many as had hearts well-disposed towards the offer of eternal life made by God's messengers believed the message. It is in this sense that the verse is taken by Alford, Bloomfield, Wordsworth, Humphrey, Bartlett (Century Bible), Rotherham, and so understood it has no bearing on the matter of foreordination unto salvation. Its use to support that doctrine only weakens the argument for it.
Romans 9. It remains to consider this passage, which is perhaps chiefly employed to support the teaching of reprobation. The salient sentences are:
And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac-for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau 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 have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might shew in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
So then he hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a 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 vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he aforeprepared unto glory, even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles (verses 10-24).
Let it be noted:
(1) Verse 11. The electing (choosing) act of God was connected with a purpose of God. Therefore it was not a mere act of will, a fiat. God did not say, It shall be merely because I will it to be; on the contrary, it was choice, therefore an act consequent upon consideration of different factors; and a choice directed to the fulfillment of a purpose. This last also involves reflection, consideration, the deciding upon an end to be served.
(2) This choice and purpose were settled by God in advance of the birth of persons who would become involved therein (as Esau and Jacob), and therefore God did not formulate His purpose to meet circumstances that had arisen. He formed and announced in advance His purpose according to what He foreknew.
(3) Verse 13. God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Why, in each case? The histories stress certain facts, such as that Esau "despised" privileges which God had granted him, whereas Jacob valued and sought them (Genesis 25 : 29-34).
Strictly it is of Esau's descendants that it is said that God "hated" them and gave up their land to destruction (Malachi 1 : 2-5). Of course, God does not feel that vicious hatred which fallen beings develop. His "hatred" is holy; it is an intense aversion to what is morally odious. Hence, it is called into exercise by unholiness; and so it is written of Esau, "men shall call them the border [frontier] of wickedness." This is why they are "the people against whom Jehovah hath indignation for ever." Whoever will read over the twenty passages where Edom is mentioned in psalms and prophesies will see how just is the description of them as wicked. He would be no holy Being who did not feel indignation against such depravity as Esau and his descendants displayed.
Thus God's differentiation between these brothers took account of moral state. It was not arbitrary.
(4) Verses 15, 16. God has mercy on whom He will. Yes, most true; but it is a wholly unwarranted assumption that His action is not governed by reason and exercised on moral grounds. The introduction here of a capricious action by God is the false and misleading notion that has vitiated the reasoning of many. All Scripture is against it. The Fountain of reason and of morals acts upon rational and moral grounds, as just quoted. He does as He will, whether in mercy or in wrath, nor does He consult others as to what He will do; but His will is formed on the basis of His foreknowledge of moral conditions that will arise and with which He will have to deal on moral grounds.
(5) Verses 17, 18. God hardened Pharaoh. The history fully illuminates this instance and argument. It is given in Exodus, Chs. 3-14.
(a) Ch. 3 : 19. When commissioning Moses to go to Egypt and demand that Pharaoh shall release his Israelitish slaves, God showed His foreknowledge by saying, "I know that the king of Egypt will not give you leave to go."
(b) Ch. 4 : 21. God charged Moses thus: "See that thou do before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put in thine hand, but I will harden [literally, make strong] his heart, and he will not let the people go."
(c) Ch. 7: 2, 3. Moses and Aaron are charged to present a second time to Pharaoh the demand of God, but again God says, "I will harden [make obstinate, Darby] Pharaoh's heart."
(d) Ch. 7: 13, 14. The demand was presented, the rod was changed to a serpent, but note how the result is now described. It does not yet say that God at once made the king's heart hard, but that "Pharaoh's heart was strong [or stubborn] and he hearkened not." In like form God adds the comment, "Pharaoh's heart is heavy (stubborn)". How it became heavy is not here stated.
(e) Ch. 7 : 22. A further judgment was inflicted, and again the effect in the king is stated as before, "Pharaoh's heart was hardened." Now notice the change on the next occasion.
(f) Ch. 8 : 15. Another plague attacked the land. At first the king seemed to relent, and asked for its removal; but upon respite being granted Pharaoh himself "hardened his heart"; he deliberately made himself "heavy," indifferent, unresponsive, disobedient.
(g) Ch. 8 : 19. And after yet another infliction, this self-induced obstinacy continued, and still Pharaoh's heart was hardened (strong in its opposition to God).
(h) Ch. 8 : 32. Yet another judgment seemed to promise a betterment in the king, and he proposed a compromise, but once more we read that by his own act "Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also"
(i) Ch. 9 : 7. Again a blow falls, but as before the king's heart "was stubborn" [heavy]; no change was induced.
(j) Ch. 9 : 12. Seven appeals had been made, seven opportunities for submission had been given, six solemn strokes had been inflicted; but Pharaoh had himself resolutely hardened his heart, and only then do we read that Jehovah hardened the heart of Pharaoh. Now he was beyond hope, and though he winced under the next blow and begged for relief, which was granted, yet at once -
(k) Ch. 9 : 34 "he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart," and this time the evil had overcome his court officers also.
(l) Ch. 10 : 1. And now God tells Moses that at length He has acted upon the proud, defiant rebel, saying "I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants."
(m) Ch. 10: 20. A further fearful judgment followed; once more the king begged for respite, which was granted, but "Jehovah hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go."
(n) Ch. 10 : 27. This was repeated on the part of the king and of God, as in
(o) Ch. 11 : 10, it is stated again.
(p) Ch. 12. Then followed the final overthrow of the resistance of the king and his people by the death of all their firstborn, and they thrust Israel out of the land.
(q) Ch. 14. But soon relenting, they displayed the utter folly of the God-hardened heart by hastening after the people to endeavor to create again the very situation which had cost them such a heavy and bitter price and overwhelming defeat. Nothing could now stop their mad fury. They acted insanely - deterred by neither the glory of the pillar of fire, the thick darkness in which they found themselves suddenly enveloped, nor the obvious danger of plunging down into the bed of the Red Sea with shimmering, shivering walls of water towering beside them. The awful explanation of such uncontrolled and suicidal folly is in the previously stated words of God (verses 4 and 17), "I will make strong Pharaoh's heart, and he shall follow after them; and I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; and the Egyptians shall know that I am Jehovah."
For if the subjects of a Sovereign will not honor him by loyal obedience, they must be compelled to honor him by the enforcing of due penalty; and if thereby they get to know his majesty and authority this shall prove in the end a benefit to them and the realm in general.
In the Word of God this history is given with unusual fullness of detail, and it is examined here in some detail because it is a very important revelation of the present and future ways of God with persons and with nations. But in this chapter its main lesson is that, while the Most High does most surely have mercy on Whom He will, and harden and destroy whom He will, in neither case is His action arbitrary or fatalistic. Like all His actions, these are directed by, and are a display of, what He is in His nature-the Fountain of morality, wisdom, reason. The Judge of all the earth does indeed as He pleases, but what He does is always right. "Behold then the goodness and severity of God" (Romans 11 : 22). It was a man who lived in wicked and desperate days who wrote: "Who is wise, that he may understand these things? prudent, that he may know them? for the ways of Jehovah are right and the just shall walk in them; but transgressors shall fall therein" (Hosea 14 : 9)
The view here offered of the divine election and fore-ordination may be illustrated in this manner. It is as if a king faced a vast rebellion. He proclaims bona fide an amnesty to all the rebels, and, of course, for the good of the realm, and his own honor, he would be glad that every rebel should submit. In this sphere, he makes no distinction and has no reserve against any person. But from among those who do submit he selects this man for such a post and that man for another honor, "each according to his several ability" (Matthew 25 : 15)
The illustration differs from the reality in that a human king could act only after submission had been made; or could at the most, in his own mind, make choice of officers only on supposition that they would submit, whereas the foreknowledge of God enabled Him to make His choice of those to be honored in advance of their very creation. But the principle is the same, even that God's offer of salvation is bona fide what its terms certainly suggest, even that it is available for all and that He on His part wishes that all would accept His mercy. But, knowing beforehand what each would do, He determined to make some into a "bride" for His own Son, into a ruling body in the kingdom; others to rule on earth, as Israel; others to be the general mass of the subjects in the kingdom. And this differentiation is based on reasonable and moral grounds, nor does it in any case supersede the action of the will of the subject of the purpose of grace. Salvation may be rejected; or if salvation be accepted, the crown of glory may be lost.
No fatalistic element exists in God or operates in His actions or ways.
It is at least twenty-five years since the writer saw the above view of election as being the meaning of Scripture. He has taught it ever since. Since these pages were written it is an encouragement to find the following passage in Dr. Griffith Thomas's able work, The Principles of Theology, 255, 256, issued in 1930.
But a careful study of Scripture will reveal certain truths which may help to place the doctrine of election in a truer light. There is no doubt that all men may be saved, if only they are willing to accept Him who died for all without exception. Further, He will most assuredly save all, except those who, having heard, persistently and finally refuse to accept Him. These, having exercised their freewill, must suffer the inevitable result of such choice. Thus Christ is not only the possible, but the real Savior of sinners, subject only and always to the power of any sinner to exercise his freewill in rejecting salvation. There is no other way of salvation, and no other merit than the sacrificial death of Christ on Calvary.
But while all this is true, it should be carefully noted that the Bible does not separate men merely into two classes, the saved and the lost, for it seems to reveal not only one class of saved ones, but several classes or grades of the saved, and it is along this line that at least some relief to our intellectual perplexity may be found.
The highest salvation is clearly associated with what the New Testament describes as "the Body of Christ", or "the Lamb's wife", and the various references to the "elect" are to this community of "heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ", who are said to have been "chosen before the foundation of the world". Yet the Bible clearly indicates that these are not the only ones saved. On the contrary, there are plain statements that, in addition to the body of Christians called "the Bride", there are other communities of human beings who are saved from everlasting destruction, and yet do not, and will never, form part of the "Body of Christ". This salvation is outside of and altogether secondary to the salvation of those chosen persons who collectively make up His spiritual Church. The following passages seem to indicate these grades
1. There are peoples of the world over whom, according to Scripture, the members of the church of God are to reign with Christ as kings and priests (1 Corinthians 7 : 2; Revelation 20 : 4-6). It is surely impossible that these people over whom the saints are to reign are the lost.
2. Reference is made to "the nations" at Christ's coming to judgment, and as the Church or "Bride" will have been previously caught up to meet Him in the air, it is clear that those who are set on the right hand of the King and are described as blessed and invited to inherit the kingdom cannot possibly be either the "brethren" of Christ or the Church (Matthew 25 : 31-46).
3. Then we read of people raised at the last Resurrection, judged according to the deeds done in the body, and out of this number those whose names are found written in the Lamb's Book of Life (Revelation 20: 12-15 ; 21 : 27). Seeing that the members of the Church have long before been raised and glorified in the first Resurrection (Revelation 20: 4-6), who are these mentioned as in the Lamb's Book of Life long after the first Resurrection?
4. In Hebrews 12: 23 we read of "the spirits of just men made perfect" as a distinct class from "the general assembly and Church of the first-born". If there be a "Church of the first-born" who inherit the full blessing, is it not a fair inference that there are second-born ones who inherit a lesser blessing?
5. When St. Paul writes that "all Israel shall be saved," we are again apparently concerned with a number of persons who are altogether outside the "Body of Christ".
6. The Heavenly City, the Bride, the Lamb's Wife (Revelation 21) is generally accepted as representing the glorified Church, and if this is so, who are "the nations" who walk in the light of the City, and who are "the kings of the earth" who bring their glory and honour into the City? There must be some distinction between these and the members of the glorified Church.
A careful consideration of these passages seems to show that, while God made a selection of men to form His Church, yet the members of this collective body are not the only ones who are in some sense saved. And although the truth of Election belongs to the mysteries of God and will never be finally solved in the present life, the consciousness of these various grades of the saved will help us to realise that Scripture seems to imply that it is incorrect to think of the majority of the human race as lost and only a few saved.
I have also been shown the following statement by Dr. G. Campbell Morgan in The Parables of the Kingdom, The Net, pp. 156, 157: "election in Scripture is to the Church, and never to salvation."
It is hoped that this discussion may relieve honest minds of difficulties honestly felt upon this topic.