Sovereignty of God

Front matter

A

: ts ei “ a iy i ay i ere “i

93) ig rate eed

Part I

Bu PRESIDENT G. W. NORTHRUP, D.D., LL.D.

LOUISVILLE, KY:.: BAPTIST BOOK CONCERN.

weer AC E:

When the articles of Dr. Watts appeared in the Western Recorder, reviewing the articles of Dr. Northrup in the Standard, there was a wide call for their publication in permanent form. Hence it was decided to issue a volume contain- - ing these articles. Application was made to the Standard to join in the publication that both sides might appear. It was understood that this was declined, and the articles of Dr. Watts, with the first reply of Dr. Northrup, were then put in type and an edition printed. It developed, however, that there was no objection to publishing Dr. Northrup’s articles in connection with those of Dr. Watts, but only that the Standard did not desire to join in bringing out the volume. Dr. Northrup’s articles were then printed, marked Part I. It was fair that he should close the discussion which he had opened, and therefore he wrote an elaborate reply to Dr. Watts, which appears as Part III.

When the edition of Dr. Watts’ articles was printed, it was not known that anything else would be in the volume, and so thick paper was used. It was therefore necessary to use like

4 PREFACE.

paper in printing the other parts, that the book might be uniform throughout. This makes the volume larger than otherwise it would be, but it is all the stronger and better. This also explains why the book is divided into the three parts, and why there has been delay in its issue. But the result is to give the reader both sides of the controversy between acknowledged masters upon a subject of the greatest interest and importance,—a result well worth all it has cost.

T. T. EATON.

LOUISVILLE, Ky.

December 5, 1893.

SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN PREDES- TINATION.

AS HELD BY MANY REPRESENTATIVE CAL- VINISTIC THEOLOGIANS.

PART:

Among those conceptions of the divine sovereignty which have prevailed more or less widely we notice the following:

1. The sovereignty of God is His right to govern the universe according to the decisions of His arbitrary will. Creatures have no claims in equity upon God, and He is under no obligation to them, except such as He has freely assumed by promise or in some other way. ‘‘His absolute dominion regards not any qualities or conditions of its objects, but He can in virtue thereof inflict the highest torments upon the innocent and exempt from punishment the most guilty.

2. Another representation is that God by virtue of His absolute sovereignty decrees and effects everything which comes to pass, that His will is the sole efficient cause in the universe, as well in the realm of mind as in that of matter, working irresistibly to will and to do both in the evil and the good. Emmons—‘‘It is as consistent with the moral rectitude of the Deity to produce sinful as holy exercises in the minds of men. He puts forth a positive influence to make moral agents act, in every instance of their conduct, as He pleases.”

3. By the sovereignty of God is sometimes meant simplyHis independence and supremacy— the truth that by nothing outside of Himself is He limited in His authority and sway over His creatures.

4. The term is often used to denote the fact that the reasons of God’s acts are unrevealed. Wardlaw—‘‘All that I mean by the sovereignty of God is that He does not see fit to reveal the reasons of His acts.” Cunningham—‘‘The Arminians virtually deny the sovereignty of God by undertaking and proposing to assign the reasons of all His dealings with men.”

). A very common statement is that the sovereignty of God is ‘‘His absolute right to govern and dispose of all His creatures simply according to His own good pleasure,” or according to His absolute perfection.

AS HELD BY MANY CALVINISTS. fi

OTHER CONCEPTIONS OF GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY.

Setting aside the first two of the above views as not worthy of consideration, we remark that in neither of the others do we find clearly indicated the element characteristic of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty as accepted by many representative Calvinists. All theologians will admit that God is supreme and independent, that He often acts from reasons which are unrevealed, and that His will is always exercised in harmony with His nature. There is, however, a radical difference of view as to the true nature of God’s absolute perfection,—some divines predicating of Him, as an essential excellency, a principle of action which others affirm to be not only no excellency at all, but inconsistent with any worthy view of His character. The idea of the divine sovereignty to which we refer may be indicated in the following way: There is in God, if we may so speak, a twofold principle of action, by virtue of which some of His acts are morally necessary, while others are optional. In requiring perfect obedience of all moral agents, in exercising complacency towards the holy, in punishing the incorrigible according to their wickedness—in these and similar ways God acts, not according to his discretion, but under the behest of His absolute holiness or righteousness. But in purposing to create the universe, to permit the fall of some of the angels and of Adam, in deciding to whom of the human race to extend, and from whom to withhold, renewing grace—in these and like matters God acts as a sovereign, being absolutely free to will or not will, and to will the precise opposite of that which He does will. In exercising the prerogative of sovereignty His acts are optional, while in meeting the demands of holiness or righteousness His acts are necessary in the sense that no other course is morally possible.

Shedd—‘‘Sovereignty denotes optional power; that is, the power to act or not in a given instance. A sovereign that has no alternative is none at all. God is a sovereign and the highest of all. He may create a universe or not as He pleases. Were He obliged or compelled to create He would not be sovereign in creating. He may arrange and order His universe as He pleases. If He were confined to but one order He would not be sovereign in His providence. In His election of a sinner to salvation, God as supreme, independent, and sovereign, acts with entire liberty of decision, and not as shut up to one course.”

Hill, Lectures in Divinity, (page 562)—<It must be admitted upon the Calvinistic system that God might have prevented this deviation and this suffering; that as no dire necessity restrains the Almighty from communicating any measure of grace to any of his creatures, the unmerited favor which was shown to some might have been shown to others also; and therefore, that all the variety of transgression, and the consequent misery of his creatures, may be traced back to the unequal distribution of that grace which he was not bound to impart to any, but which, although He might have imparted it to all, He chose to give only to some.”

Edwards, (IV. 548)—1. ‘‘God can, without pre}judice to the glory of any of His attributes, bestow salvation on any of the children of men, except on those who have committed the sin against. the Holy Ghost’”—an exception which He made in the exercise of His sovereign discretion. 2. ‘‘He may refuse salvation to any sinner whatsoever without prejudice to the honor of any of His attributes.”

WHAT SUCH CONCEPTIONS INVOLVE.

But it is needless to multiply quotations from representative Calvinistic writers, expressing or implying the same idea of the divine sovereignty. Edwards is one of the most penetrating, logical, and luminous thinkers in the history of the church, and in the sermon referred to he sets forth in a full and powerful way the doctrine of God’s sovereignty as a prerogative in the exercise of which He is entirely free, as we have said, to will the precise opposite of that which He does will in the case of any individual. He remarks that, ‘‘If it would in itself be prejudicial to any of his attributes to bestow or refuse salvation, then God would not in that matter act as absolutely sovereign; it would then cease to be a merely arbitrary thing, or a matter of absolute liberty.” An act of sovereignty is, then, ‘‘a merely arbitrary thing,” ‘‘a matter of absolute liberty,” the exact opposite of which is equally in His power, and would involve no pre}- udice to the honor of any of His attributes. According ‘to this representation God does not and cannot act as a sovereign except in cases in which two or more courses of action are morally possible, or consistent with His perfections. If, then, there are several courses of action which are optional with God, they must be equally excellent, equally worthy of Himself. For to suppose that He does or can adopt a less in preference to a more wise and glorious mode of procedure, would impugn His absolute perfection. We must, then, regard the following propositions as true:

1. God decreed to elect a part of mankind and to reprobate the rest, and remains God, infinitely blessed and glorious.

2. Had He reversed these decrees as regards

AS HELD BY MANY CALVINISTS. a iat the individuals included in them, electing those whom He reprobated, and reprobating those whom He elected, He would have remained God, infinitely blessed and glorious.

3. Had He decreed to include in either of these purposes any number of individuals less than the whole human race, He would have remained God, infinitely blessed and glorious.

4. Had He decreed the damnation of all, He would have remained God, infinitely blessed and glorious.

5. Had He decreed the salvation of all, He would have remained God, infinitely blessed and glorious.

WHAT THEY REQUIRE US TO ACCEPT.

Let us consider, now, what view of the character of God these propositions require us to accept. Having made an atonement sufficient for the whole world, God is now able, acting in complete harmony with His infinite perfections, to bestow salvation on all mankind,—those only excepted who have committed the unpardonable sin,—which exception He was entirely free not to make; and yet, notwithstanding the amplitude of the provisions of grace, He can refuse salvation to a part or all of mankind, acting in a manner equally honorable and glorious. The Scriptures teach that He will bring ‘‘a great multitude ibe SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.

which no man can number, of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues” to the summit of finite honor and blessedness, fitted and. destined to be forever with Jesus Christ, the witnesses of His exaltation and the sharers of His glory. We would inquire, now, if it would be speaking of God ‘‘the thing that is right,” to say that it was optional with Him—morally possible for Him—a procedure that would have involved no violence to any principle of His nature—to have decreed to make an atonement in Jesus. Christ, and yet, to consign to a state of everlasting sin and misery this great multitude, in whose regeneration, sanctification, and glorification, every divine perfection is displayed in the most. impressive and glorious manner? The Scriptures also teach that a part—apparently a large part—of our race, ‘‘shall go away into everlasting punishment,” every one of whom is certain to commit more acts of sin and to endure more suffering than have been committed and endured by all beings in the universe since ‘‘the angels. that sinned were cast down to hell.” Again, we would inquire if we are bound to believe that it was optional with God—morally possible for Him—a procedure which would have involved no violence to any principle of His nature—to have decreed the everlasting holiness and felicity of this multitude, in which case every one of them

AS HELD BY MANY CALVINISTS. te would perform more holy acts, and enjoy more happiness, than have been performed and enjoyed in the universe since the first rational spirits cried one to another, ‘‘Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty!”

These questions, we are told, are to be answered in the affirmative. If God had decreed to consign to the inconceivable horrors of hell all those ‘‘whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life,” and if He had decreed to bring to the ineffable glories of heaven those to whom Christ will say: ‘‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels,” He would have acted, it is affirmed, in a manner equally wise and worthy of himself as the creator and governor of the universe. But do the Scriptures warrant us in ascribing to God a prerogative in the exercise of which He is free—morally, absolutely free—to act in the way here indicated,—to ordain to dishonor and wrath any part of our race, when able to bring all to a state of eternal blessedness, acting in harmony with every principle of His nature? Is it credible that God, who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to the shame and agony of the cross in order to accomplish its redemption, would or could consign to eternal death any whom He could ordain to eternal life, without departing one iota from the most wise and perfect method of moral government? In our judgment to suppose that He has done, or could have done this would contradict our necessary idea of his absolute perfection. And if God decreed the damnation of a. part of our race, every one of whom He could have decreed to save, without prejudice to the glory of any of His attributes—His power, or wisdom, or independence, or immutability, or truth, or holiness, or justice, or righteousness, or benevolence, or mercy, or patience—we challenge any man to suggest a reason for His action which would not involve, logically, the denial of His. benevolence. Observe that the question here presented is not the one with which the Calvinistic system is supposed to be burdened and which necessarily baffles our intelligence, why of two individuals between whom there is no difference as regards the reasons of His action God elects one and passes by the other; but why He reprobates any, seeing that He is free and able in every legitimate sense of these terms—metaphysically and morally free and able, on the ground of the atonement, to bring to the perfection and glory of the heavenly world the whole human race—leaving none of them ‘‘to dell with the devouring fire,” none ‘‘to be cast into hell, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” none to call in vain to the mountains.

and rocks, ‘‘F’all on us and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb.” If of the five propositions stated above, the last were true, the salvation of all men would be, in our judgment, as certain as the existence of God; but the acceptance of all of them as true—which the theory under consideration requires—necessarily implies that all of them are false; that is, that God is not infinitely blessed and glorious in perfection, but is wholly destitute of benevolence, and consequently of every moral excellence—having only the metaphysical properties of self-existence, independence, intelligence, and almighty will.

REASONS EXAMINED.

Let us examine some of the reasons which are urged in vindication of the benevolence of God in decreeing the damnation of a part of mankind though entirely free to decree the salvation of all.

1. It is urged that God has an absolute right. to exercise justice in dealing with mankind involved in sin and guilt. But the mere right to exercise justice would not render its actual exercise consistent with benevolence if it were optional with Him, if He were entirely free, to exercise His mercy in the case of every human being—as free to bring all as a part of our race to the awards of the heavenly world. 9. It is held that divine justice would be more clearly and impressively illustrated by the everlasting punishment of a part of mankind than it could be in case all were to be saved. But this supposition contradicts the theory which affirms that the honor of no one of the divine attributes would be diminished or prejudiced by the decree of universal salvation, but that all of them would be as gloriously manifested in the salvation of all men, as they would be in the salvation of a part and the destruction of a part. The atonement is an infinitely glorious illustration of the justice of God; it is as the apostle declares (Rom. iii. 25, 26), a perfect theodicy, clearing the character of God in relation to the moral scandal which our world presents, and so satisfying His righteous indignation against mankind that He can ‘‘Himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.” And who can doubt that if God can glorify Himself equally in the manifestation of wrath and of mercy in dealing with men, He will, in every instance, manifest His mercy, for the exercise of mercy is, while the exercise of wrath is not, congenial ‘to His nature. ‘‘As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” It is of course true, that if men go on in sin and die

AS HELD BY MANY CALVINISTS. a We impenitent justice must demand that they be punished according to their guilt; but this fact has no bearing on the question before us, for the theory declares that there was no demand of justice forbidding God to regenerate and pardon these same persons.

3. It is said that it is the will of God to manifest His sovereignty and that His sovereignty like His other attributes is manifested in the exercise of it (Edwards). But if God should pardon all men His acts would be as truly acts of sovereignty as they would be in case He should pardon a part and refuse to pardon the rest. Should it be urged, however, as it commonly is that divine sovereignty must be manifested both in the way of wrath and of mercy in order that its true nature may be most clearly‘and impressively revealed, we would inquire:

(1) If the reprobation of one individual, or at most a few hundred, representing classes ranging from the lowest to the highest in guilt, would not be sufficient to answer the end here suggested—the display of sovereignty in the way of wrath?

(2) If it were necessary for God in order to make the most perfect self-revelation, to exercise His sovereignty in consigning to hell such and so many of our race as are included in the purpose of reprobation, how could it have been ad optional with Him to decree the salvation of any one of this number? Is it optional with God to reveal Himself otherwise than in the most perfect manner? And if it is optional with Him to do this, how far would He be free to go in making an imperfect self-revelation? to the extent that the revelation would have no excellency at all?

4. It is held by many that the reprobation of a part of mankind is not only consistent with, but required by, infinite benevolence. This is the view of those theologians who regard benevolence as the fundamental ethical perfection of God. According to this theory God is determined in all His dealings with angels and with mankind, by supreme regard for the greatest good of creation. He purposed to save every man whom He could save consistently with this end. Had He decided to save the whole world, or to save one man, more or less, than He will in fact save, He would have defeated the end of infinite benevolence, choosing an inferior instead of a superior good, which would be a denial of Himself. But it would be difficult to advance an idea more profoundly repugnant to our deepest moral convictions than to say that God decreed the everlasting sin and anguish of a large part, or even of one, of the human race, in order to_ secure to the rest a higher degree of felicity.

And yet many have so conceived and represented ‘‘Him whose nature and whose name is Love.” A theologian of fame in the latter part of the eighteenth century (Toplady), could write: ‘‘The blessing of election, somewhat like the Sibylline books, rises in value, proportionately to the fewness of its objects.” According to this notion, it would seem that to be embraced in the infinite and everlasting love of God, would be a blessing hardly worth having if all men were to share in it; and that, since the ‘‘great salvation” rises in value, ‘‘proportionately to the fewness of its objects,” it would reach its maximum value, in case only one person should obtain the felicity and glory of the heavenly world. So holy men of old thought and wrote of God and ‘‘His unspeakable gift.” But it is obvious that this theory, based on the idea of benevolence as fundamental in God, is utterly inconsistent with the ascription to Him of an optional power in dealing with men; for the law of benevolence, which is the rule of all His acts, determined the decrees of election and reprobation, as regards both the number and the particular individuals to be included in each.

5. It is conjectured and there may be some unrevealed and inconceivable principle in the nature of God in virtue of which He refuses to pardon a part of our race. But this unknown principle, whatever it may be, since it leaves Him entirely free in relation to all men to exercise mercy in which He infinitely delights, cannot move Him to exercise wrath in which He solemnly declares that He has no pleasure.

FALLACIES IN THE REASONING.

All these attempts to reconcile the action of God, in dealing with those who perish, with His infinite benevolence are necessarily rendered futile by the irrational and unscriptural nature of the assumption which they are designed to justify—viz.: that God ordained to dishonor and wrath those whom He was absolutely free to ordain to eternal life—whom He could have purposed to renew and sanctify and glorify, acting in harmony with every principle of His being.

Dr. Shedd asks: ‘‘What sovereignty has God in the salvation of a sinner, if He has no alternative in regard to election, regeneration and pardon? if eternal justice requires that He elect, and forbids that He pass by? if eternal justice requires that He regenerate, and forbids that He leave in unregeneracy? if eternal justice requires that He pardon, and forbids that He refuse to pardon?” (Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, p. 75.)

We think Dr. Shedd in error in supposing that the rejection of the notion of divine sovereignty which he defends, compels, logically, the admission that eternal justice requires God to elect,

AS HELD BY MANY CALVINISTS. ot regenerate and pardon sinners. Suppose we substitute ‘‘infinite wisdom” for ‘‘eternal justice” in the above quotation, it will then read: ‘‘What sovereignty has God in the salvation of the sinner if infinite wisdom requires that He elect, and forbids that He pass by? if infinite wisdom requires that He regenerate, and forbids that He leave in unregeneracy? if infinite wisdom requires that He pardon, and forbids that He refuse to pardon?”

Is it reasonable and scriptural to believe that in deciding to adopt the existing plan of creation God was guided by His infinite wisdom, by His absolute perfection, so that this plan, embracing the universe in its whole extant and everlasting duration, including all His acts in relation: to angelic intelligence, holy and apostate, and in relation to the human race in their unfallen state, and in their state of sin and guilt, and of gracious probation, is the most wise and perfect plan which the infinite mind of God could conceive? If this representation is reasonable and scriptural, then it is right to say, that the infinite wisdom, the absolute perfection of God, required Him to include in the purpose of election such and so many men as are actually included in it, and to include in the purpose of -reprobation such and so many men as are actually included in it; that had He decreed to elect or pas SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.

reprobate one more or less, or to reprobate one of those whom He elected, or to elect one of those whom He reprobated, He would have acted less wisely and less worthily of Himself, and, therefore, inconsistently with His infinite per- - fection.

If this position is correct, it was not optional with God, in the sense in which the term is commonly used, to elect all men, or to reprobate all men, or to elect those whom He reprobated, and to reprobate those whom He elected. The decisive question here is not, what claims, in equity man has upon God, or what are His rights in relation to them, but what is most congruous with God’s essential being; what is His obligation to Himself, as the all-perfect creator and governor of the universe, to satisfy the promptings of His love, so far as He can do so, acting in harmony with all His other perfections. Love is an essential and infinitely glorious attribute of God, whose mighty impulses He will infallibly satisfy—must needs satisfy—unless restrained by some behest arising from His absolute holiness. When we consider how profoundly opposed sin is to the holy nature of God, the urgency of His entreaties and expostulations with sinners, crying out night and day, ‘‘O, do not that abominable thing which I hate”; the fierceness of His indignation against those who trample upon His laws and defy His authority; His amazing selfsacrifice in Jesus Christ to render the exercise of mercy possible; the inconceivable dreadful doom of apostate angels and of the incorrigible of our race,—hell with its horrors of outer darkness, and of everlasting fear, and shame, and regret, and remorse, and despair,—we are constrained to reject the theory which finds the explanation of this awful reality in the notion of the divine sovereignty as a prerogative whose exercise is optional in the sense in which it is held by representative Calvinistic theologians, and to believe that nothing short of some absolute impossibility, metaphysical or moral, could have prevented God from decreeing the regeneration and pardon of all mankind, and their everlasting holiness and happiness.

STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE AS PREFERRED.

The sovereignty of God is His right and power to constitute and govern the universe according to his absolute ethical perfection; it implies supremacy, independence, and infinite moral excellency, but not optional power in the sense that He is entirely free to will the exact opposite of that which He does will. He exercised His sovereignty in adopting the plan of the existing universe because of its supreme excellency as including those methods of action most worthy of Himself. It is an ansumption for the support of which there is no evidence accessible to the human mind, that there were other plans precisely equal to the one adopted in point of perfection as expressive of the mind and heart of God; or that He has ever performed, or ever will or can perform an act, the opposite of which, viewed in all its relations and bearings, would be equally wise and excellent, equally befitting Himself as infinitely benevolent and absolutely holy.

God is a sovereign and the highest of all, not because he possesses a prerogative in the exercise of which He is free to choose any one of an infinity of systems of creation, whether equal or unequal, in point of excellence; but because He possesses the power and the right to govern and dispose of all His creatures according to the dictates of His infinite intelligence, making Himself His own highest law, and highest good, and highest end. We deny that the Bible justifies the ascription to God of a prerogative in virtue of which He was entirely free to ordain to eternal life those whom He will consign to the congenial companionship of the devil and his angels.

It is as self-evident as any truth in mathematics that a perfect human father, remaining such, could not but pursue a course which would win back to virtue and happiness his wayward son, in case he knew infallibly that course to be consistent with the best interests of the universe: and the highest glory of God. And it cannot be less certain that our heavenly Father, of whose love for His disobedient children the most. perfect human love is but an infinitely inade- ‘quate illustration, will save every one whom it. is optional with Him to save—every one whom He knows He can save consistently with the best interests of His universal kingdom, and without prejudice to the glory of any of His attributes. |

This position does not contradict nor is it in any degree inconsistent with, the teaching of Scripture, that salvation is in every instance in which it is bestowed a matter of pure and unbounded grace,—the mighty constraint of divine love enhancing immeasurably the graciousness. of its expression towards those who deserve nothing but the retribution of divine justice.

According to the teaching of the Scriptures. there is in God a principle of absolute ethical limitation or self-restraint. He cannot deny Himself; He cannot lie; He cannot be tempted with evil; He cannot give His glory to another. Itis because of this principle or quality of the nature of God which renders itimpossible that He should do what is unbefitting or unworthy of Himself, that all agree in making affirmations like the following: God cannot command essential wickedness, as malevolence, ingratitude, selfishness; He cannot make the wicked happy in their wickedness; He cannot punish wrong-doers more than they deserve; He cannot require of unfallen beings more than He qualifies them to perform, etc. This principle of morally necessary self-restraint is not a limitation in the proper sense of the term; it is not a fetter on the life of God, but is essential to the highest freedom; He would not be more, but infinitely less, perfect if He could dény Himself. The principle of God’s self-limitation or self-restraint is not His love or His holiness, but His absolute ethical perfection of which holiness and love are the essence, and which is the rule and law of His will in all its acts in creation, providence, and redemption. We have here, not a mere hypothesis, nor an idea derived from theological speculation. but a clear truth of revelation. a principle of moral government, which the Scriptures ascribe to God and from which they declare He cannot depart. And it is on the ground of this fundamental truth of inspiration that we affirm our conviction that God will do the utmost that He can do to save every member of our race; the utmost that He can do having due regard to the universal and everlasting interests of His kingdom and the glory of His name; that