Home    |     Not Avail.    |     Not Avail.    |     Not Avail.    |     Not Avail.    |     Not Avail.    |     Not Avail.    |

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

A.W. PINK

Chapter 7 -- God's Sovereignty And The Human Will

"It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (#Php 2:13).

Concerning the nature and the power of fallen man's will, the greatest confusion prevails today, and the most erroneous views are held, even by many of God's children. The popular idea now prevailing, and which is taught from the great majority of pulpits, is that man has a "free will", and that salvation comes to the sinner through his will cooperating with the Holy Spirit. To deny the "free will" of man, i.e. his power to choose that which is good, his native ability to accept Christ, is to bring one into disfavour at once, even before most of those who profess to be orthodox. And yet Scripture emphatically says, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (#Ro 9:16). Which shall we believe: God, or the preachers?

But some one may reply, Did not Joshua say to Israel, "Choose you this day whom ye will serve"? Yes, he did; but why not complete his sentence?--"whether the gods that your fathers served which were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell" (#Jos 24:15)! But why attempt to pit scripture against scripture? The Word of God never contradicts itself, and the Word expressly declares, "There is none that seeketh after God" (#Ro 3:11). Did not Christ say to the men of his day, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (#Joh 5:40)? Yes, but some did come to him, some did receive him. True and who were they? #Joh 1:12,13 tells us: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"!

But does not Scripture say, "Whosoever will may come"? It does, but does this signify that everybody has the will to come? What of those who will not come? "Whosoever will may come" no more implies that fallen man has the power (in himself) to come, than "Stretch forth thine hand" implied that the man with the withered arm had ability (in himself) to comply. In and of himself the natural man has power to reject Christ; but in and of himself he has not the power to receive Christ. And why? Because he has a mind hat is "enmity against him" (#Ro 8:7); because he has a heart that hates him (#Joh 15:18). Man chooses that which is according to his nature, and therefore before he will ever choose or prefer that which is divine and spiritual, a new nature must be imparted to him; in other words, he must be born again.

Should it be asked, But does not the Holy Spirit overcome a man's enmity and hatred when he convicts the sinner of his sins and his need of Christ; and does not the Spirit of God produce such conviction in many that perish? Such language betrays confusion of thought: were such a man's enmity really "overcome", then he would readily turn to Christ; that he does not come to the Saviour, demonstrates that his enmity is not overcome. But that many are, through the preaching of the Word, convicted by the Holy Spirit, who nevertheless die in unbelief, is solemnly true. Yet, it is a fact which must not be lost sight of that, the Holy Spirit does something more in each of God's elect than he does in the non-elect: he works in them "both to will and to do of God's good pleasure" (#Php 2:13).

In reply to what we have said above, Arminians would answer, No; the Spirit's work of conviction is the same both in the converted and in the unconverted, that which distinguishes the one class from the other is that the former yielded to his strivings, whereas the latter resist them. But if this were the case, then the Christian would make himself to "differ", whereas the Scripture attributes the "differing" to God's discriminating grace (#1Co 4:7). Again; if such were the case, then the Christian would have ground for boasting and self-glorying over his cooperation with the Spirit; but this would flatly contradict #Eph 2:8, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God".

Let us appeal to the actual experience of the Christian reader. Was there not a time (may the remembrance of it bow each of us into the dust) when you were unwilling to come to Christ? There was. Since then you have come to him. Are you now prepared to give him all the glory for that (#Ps 115:1)? Do you not acknowledge you came to Christ because the Holy Spirit brought you from unwillingness to willingness? You do. Then is it not also a patent fact that the Holy Spirit has not done in many others what he has in you! Granting that many others have heard the Gospel, been shown their need of Christ, yet, they are still unwilling to come to him. Thus he has wrought more in you, than in them. Do you answer, "Yet I remember well the time when the Great Issue was presented to me, and my consciousness testifies that my will acted and that I yielded to the claims of Christ upon me". Quite true. But before you "yielded", the Holy Spirit overcame the native enmity of your mind against God, and this "enmity" he does not overcome in all. Should it be said, "That is because they are unwilling for their enmity to be overcome". Ah, none are thus "willing" till he has put forth his all mighty power and wrought a miracle of grace in the heart.

But let us now inquire, What is the human will? Is it a self-determining agent, or is it, in turn, determined by something else? Is it sovereign or servant? Is the will superior to every other faculty of our being so that it governs them, or is it moved by their impulses and subject to their pleasure? Does the will rule the mind, or does the mind control the will? Is the will free to do as it pleases, or is it under the necessity of rendering obedience to something outside of itself? "Does the will stand apart from the other great faculties or powers of the soul, a man within a man, who can reverse the man and fly against the man and split him into segments, as a glass snake breaks in pieces? Or, is the will connected with the other faculties, as the tail of the serpent is with his body, and that again with his head, so that where the head goes, the whole creature goes, and, as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he? First thought, then heart (desire or aversion), and then act. Is it this way, the dog wags the tail? Or, is it the will, the tail, wags the dog? Is the will the first and chief thing in the man, or is it the last thing--to be kept subordinate, and in its place beneath the other faculties? and, is the true philosophy of moral action and its process that of #Ge 3:6: `And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food' (sense perception, intelligence), `and a tree to be desired' (affections), `she took and ate thereof' (the will)." (G.S. Bishop). These are questions of more than academical interest. They are of practical importance. We believe that we do not go too far when we affirm that the answer returned to these questions is a fundamental test of doctrinal soundness. {a}

1. The Nature Of The Human Will.

What is the Will? We answer, the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessarily implies the refusal of one thing and the acceptance, of another. The positive and the negative must both be present to the mind before there can be any choice. In every, act of the will there is a preference--the desiring of one thing rather than another. Where there is no preference, but complete indifference, there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. But there is something which influences the choice; something which determines the decision. Hence he will cannot be sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative, because, as we have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations, is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself, hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute "freedom" of it. Acts of the will cannot come to pass of themselves--to say they can, is to postulate an uncaused effect. "Ex nihilo nihil fit"--nothing cannot produce something. In all ages, however, there have been those who contended for the absolute freedom or sovereignty of the human will. Men will argue that the will possesses a self-determining power. They say, for example, I can turn my eyes up or down, the mind is quite indifferent which I do, the will must decide. But this is a contradiction in terms. This case supposes that I choose one thing in preference to another, while I am in a state of complete indifference. Manifestly, both cannot be true. But it may be replied, the mind was quite indifferent until it came to have a preference. Exactly; and at that time the will was quiescent, too! But the moment indifference vanished, choice was made, and the fact that indifference gave place to preference, overthrows the argument that the will is capable of choosing between two equal things. As we have said, choice implies the acceptance of one alternative and the rejection of the other or others.

That which determines the will is that which causes it to choose. If the will is determined, then there must be a determiner. What is it that determines the will? We reply, The strongest motive power which is brought to bear upon it. What this motive power is, varies in different cases. With one it may be the logic of reason, with another the voice of conscience, with another the impulse of the emotions, with another the whisper of the tempter, with another the power of the Holy Spirit; whichever of these presents the strongest motive power and exerts the greatest influence upon the individual himself, is that which impels the will to act. In other words, the action of the will is determined by that condition of mind (which in turn is influenced by the world, the flesh, and the Devil, as well as by God), which has the greatest degree of tendency to excite volition. To illustrate what we have just said let us analyze a simple example--

On a certain Lord's day afternoon a friend of ours was suffering from a severe headache. He was anxious to visit the sick, but feared that if he did so his own condition would grow worse, and as the consequence, be unable to attend the preaching of the Gospel that evening. Two alternatives confronted him: to visit the sick that afternoon and risk being sick himself, or, to take a rest that afternoon (and visit the sick the next day), and probably arise refreshed and fit for the evening service. Now what was it that decided our friend in choosing between these two alternatives? The will? Not at all. True, that in the end, the will made a choice, but the will itself was moved to make the choice. In the above case certain considerations presented strong motives for selecting either alternative; these motives were balanced the one against the other by the individual himself, i.e., his heart and mind, and the one alternative being supported by stronger motives than the other, decision was formed accordingly, and then the will acted. On the one side, our friend felt impelled by a sense of duty to visit the sick; he was moved with compassion to do so, and thus a strong motive was presented to his mind. On the other hand, his judgment reminded him that he was feeling far from well himself, that he badly needed a rest, that if he visited the sick his own condition would probably be made worse, and in such case he would be prevented from attending the preaching of the Gospel that night; furthermore, he knew that on the morrow, the Lord willing, he could visit the sick, and this being so, he concluded he ought to rest that afternoon. Here then were two sets of alternatives presented to our Christian brother: on the one side was a sense of duty plus his own sympathy, on the other side was a sense of his own need plus a real concern for God's glory, for he felt that he ought to attend the preaching of the Gospel that night. The latter prevailed. Spiritual considerations outweighed his sense of duty. Having formed his decision the will acted accordingly, and he retired to rest. An analysis of the above case shows that the mind or reasoning faculty was directed by spiritual considerations, and the mind regulated and controlled the will. Hence we say that, if the will is controlled, it is neither sovereign nor free, but is the servant of the mind.

It is only as we see the real nature of freedom and mark that the will is subject to the motives brought to bear upon it, that we are able to discern there is no conflict between two statements of Holy Writ which concern our blessed Lord. In #Mt 4:1 we read, "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil"; but in #Mr 1:12,13 we are told, "And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan". It is utterly impossible to harmonize these two statements by the Arminian conception of the will. But really there is no difficulty. That Christ was "driven", implies it was by a forcible motive or powerful impulse, such as was not to be resisted or refused; that he was "led" denotes his freedom in going. Putting the two together we learn, that he was driven, with a voluntary condescension thereto. So, there is the liberty of man's will and the victorious efficacy of God's grace united together: a sinner may be "drawn" and yet "come" to Christ--the "drawing" presenting to him the irresistible motive, the "coming" signifying the response of his will--as Christ was "driven" and "led" by the Spirit into the wilderness.

Human philosophy insists that it is the will which governs the man, but the Word of God teaches that it is the heart which is the dominating centre of our being. Many scriptures might be quoted in substantiation of this. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life" (#Pr 4:23). "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders", etc. (#Mr 7:21). Here our Lord traces these sinful acts back to their source, and declares that their fountain is the "heart", and not the will! Again; "This people draweth nigh unto me with their lips, but their heart is far from me" (#Mt 15:8). If further proof were required we might call attention to the fact that the word "heart" is found in the Bible more than three times oftener than is the word "will", even though nearly half of the references to the latter refer to God's will!

When we affirm that it is the heart and not the will which governs the man, we are not merely striving about words, but insisting on a distinction that is of vital importance. Here is an individual before whom two alternatives are placed; which will he choose? We answer, the one which is most agreeable to himself, i.e., his "heart"--the innermost core of his being. Before the sinner is set a life of virtue and piety, and a life of sinful indulgence; which will he follow? The latter. Why? Because this is his choice. But does that prove the will is sovereign? Not at all. Go back from effect to cause. Why does the sinner choose a life of sinful indulgence? Because he prefers it--and he does prefer it, all arguments to the contrary not withstanding, though of course he does not enjoy the effects of such a course. And why does he prefer it? Because his heart is sinful. The same alternatives, in like manner, confront the Christian, and he chooses and strives after a life of piety and virtue. Why? Because God has given him a new heart or nature. Hence we say it is not the will which makes the sinner impervious to all appeals to "forsake his way", but his corrupt and evil heart. He will not come to Christ, because he does not want to, and he does not want to because his heart hates him and loves sin: see #Jer 17:9!

In defining the will we have said above, that "the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action." We say the immediate cause, for the will is not the primary cause of any action, any more than the hand is. Just as the hand is controlled by the muscles and nerves of the arm, and the arm by the brain; so the will is the servant of the mind, and the mind, in turn, is affected by various influences and motives which are brought to bear upon it. But, it may be asked, Does not Scripture make its appeal to man's will? Is it not written, "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (#Re 22:17)? And did not our Lord say, "ye will not come to me that ye might have life" (#Joh 5:40)? We answer; the appeal of Scripture is not always made to man's "will"; other of his faculties are also addressed. For example: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." "Hear and your soul shall live." "Look unto me and be ye saved." "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved." "Come now and let us reason together", "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness", etc., etc. 2. The Bondage Of The Human Will.

In any treatise that proposes to deal with the human will, its nature and functions, respect should be had to the will in three different men, namely, unfallen Adam, the sinner, and the Lord Jesus Christ. In unfallen Adam the will was free, free in both directions, free toward good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of innocency, but not in a state of holiness, as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam's will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is to say, in Adam there was no constraining bias in him toward either good or evil, and as such, Adam differed radically from all his descendants, as well as from "the Man Christ Jesus." But with the sinner it is far otherwise. The sinner is born with a will that is not in a condition of moral equipoise, because in him there is a heart that is "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked", and this gives him a bias toward evil. So, too, with the Lord Jesus it was far otherwise: He also differed radically from unfallen Adam. The Lord Jesus Christ could not sin because he was "the Holy One of God." Before he was born into this world it was said to Mary, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (#Lu 1:35). Speaking reverently then, we say, that the will of the Son of Man was not in a condition of moral equipoise, that is, capable of turning toward either good or evil. The will of the Lord Jesus was biased toward that which is good because, side by side with his sinless, holy, perfect humanity, was his eternal Deity. Now in contradistinction from the will of the Lord Jesus which was biased toward good, and Adam's will which, before his fall, was in a condition of moral equipoise--capable of turning toward either good or evil--the sinner's will is biased toward evil, and therefore is free in one direction only, namely, in the direction of evil. The sinner's will is enslaved because it is in bondage to and is the servant of a depraved heart.

In what does the sinner's freedom consist? This question is naturally suggested by what we have just said above. The sinner is "free" in the sense of being unforced from without. God never forces the sinner to sin. But the sinner is not "free" to do either good or evil, because an evil heart within is ever inclining him toward sin. Let us illustrate what we have in mind. I hold in my hand a book. I release it; what happens? It falls. In which direction? Downwards; always downwards. Why? Because, answering the law of gravity, its own weight sinks it. Suppose I desire that book to occupy a position three feet higher; then what? I must lift it; a power outside of that book must raise it. Such is the relationship which fallen man sustains toward God. While divine power upholds him, he is preserved from plunging still deeper into sin; let that power be withdrawn, and he falls--his own weight (of sin) drags him down. God does not push him down, any more than I did that book. Let all divine restraint be removed, and every man is capable of becoming, would become, a Cain, a Pharaoh, a Judas. How then is the sinner to move heavenwards? By an act of his own will? Not so. A power outside of himself must grasp hold of him and lift him every inch of the way. The sinner is free, but free in one direction only--free to fall, free to sin. As the Word expresses it: "For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness" (#Ro 6:20). The sinner is free to do as he pleases, always as he pleases (except as he is restrained by God), but his pleasure is to sin.

In the opening paragraph of this chapter we insisted that a proper conception of the nature and function of the will is of practical importance, nay, that it constitutes a fundamental test of theological orthodoxy or doctrinal soundness. We wish to amplify this statement and attempt to demonstrate its accuracy. The freedom or bondage of the will was the dividing line between Augustinianism and Pelagianism, and in more recent times between Calvinism and Arminianism. Reduced to simple terms, this means, that the difference involved was the affirmation or denial of the total depravity of man. In taking the affirmative we shall now consider,

3. The Impotency Of The Human Will.

Does it lie within the province of man's will to accept or reject the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour? Granted that the Gospel is preached to the sinner, that the Holy Spirit convicts him of his lost condition, does it, in the final analysis, lie within the power of his own will to resist or to yield himself up to God? The answer to this question defines our conception of human depravity. That man is a fallen creature all professing Christians will allow, but what many of them mean by "fallen" is often difficult to determine. The general impression seems to be that man is now mortal, that he is no longer in the condition in which he left the hands of his Creator, that he is liable to disease, that he inherits evil tendencies; but, that if he employs his powers to the best of his ability, somehow he will be happy at last. O, how far short of the sad truth! Infirmities, sickness, even corporeal death, are but trifles in comparison with the moral and spiritual effects of the Fall! It is only by consulting the Holy Scriptures that we are able to obtain some conception of the extent of that terrible calamity.

When we say that man is totally depraved, we mean that the entrance of sin into the human constitution has affected every part and faculty of man's being. Total depravity means that man is, in spirit and soul and body, the slave of sin and the captive of the Devil--walking "according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (#Eph 2:2). This statement ought not to need arguing: it is a common fact of human experience. Man is unable to realize his own aspirations and materialize his own ideals. He cannot do the things that he would. There is a moral inability which paralyses him. This is proof positive that he is no free man, but instead, the slave of sin and Satan. "Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts (desires) of your father ye will do" (#Joh 8:44). Sin is more than an act or a series of acts; it is a state or condition: it is that which lies behind and produces the acts. Sin has penetrated and permeated the whole of man's make up. It has blinded the understanding, corrupted the heart, and alienated the mind from God. And the will has not escaped. The will is under the dominion of sin and Satan. Therefore, the will is not free. In short, the affections love as they do and the will chooses as it does because of the state of the heart, and because the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked "There is none that seeketh after God" (#Ro 3:11).

We repeat our question; Does it lie within the power of the sinner's will to yield himself up to God? Let us attempt an answer by asking several others: Can water (of itself) rise above its own level? Can a clean thing come out of an unclean? Can the will reverse the whole tendency and strain of human nature? Can that which is under the dominion of sin originate that which is pure and holy? Manifestly not. If ever the will of a fallen and depraved creature is to move God-wards, a Divine power must be brought to bear upon it which will overcome the influences of sin that pull in a counter direction. This is only another way of saying, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw him" (#Joh 6:44). In other words, God's people must be made willing in the day of his power (#Ps 110:3). As said Mr. Darby, "If Christ came to save that which is lost, free will has no place. Not that God prevents men from receiving Christ--far from it. But even when God uses all possible inducements, all that is capable of exerting influence in the heart of man, it only serves to show that man will have none of it, that so corrupt is his heart, and so decided his will not to submit to God (however much it may be the devil who encourages him to sin) that nothing can induce him to receive the Lord, and to give up sin. If by the words, 'freedom of man', they mean that no one forces him to reject the Lord, this liberty fully exists. But if it is said that, on account of the dominion of sin, of which he is the slave, and that voluntarily, he cannot escape from his condition, and make choice of the good--even while acknowledging it to be good, and approving of it--then he has no liberty whatever (italics ours). He is not subject to the law, neither indeed can be; hence, they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

The will is not sovereign; it is a servant, because influenced and controlled by the other faculties of man's being. The sinner is not a free agent because he is a slave of sin--this was clearly implied in our Lord's words, "If the Son shall therefore make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (#Joh 8:36). Man is a rational being and as such responsible and accountable to God, but to affirm that he is a free moral agent is to deny that he is totally depraved--i.e., depraved in will as in everything else. Because man's will is governed by his mind and heart, and because these have been vitiated and corrupted by sin, then it follows that if ever man is to turn or move in a God-ward direction, God himself must work in him "both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (#Php 2:13). Man's boasted freedom is in truth the "bondage of corruption"; he "serves divers lusts and pleasures." Said a deeply taught servant of God, "Man is impotent as to his will. He has no will favourable to God. I believe in free will; but then it is a will only free to act according to nature (italics ours). A dove has no will to eat carrion; a raven no will to eat the clean food of the dove. Put the nature of the dove into the raven and it will eat the food of the dove. Satan could have no will for holiness. We speak it with reverence, God could have no will for evil. The sinner in his sinful nature could never have a will according to God. For this he must be born again" (J. Denham Smith). This is just what we have contended for throughout this chapter--the will is regulated by the nature. Among the "decrees" of the Council of Trent (1563), which is the avowed standard of Popery, we find the following:--

"If any one shall affirm, that man's free will, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases; but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!

"If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man's free will is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed"!

Thus, those who today insist on the free will of the natural man believe precisely what Rome teaches on the subject! That Roman Catholics and Arminians walk hand in hand may be seen from others of the decrees issued by the Council of Trent:--"If any one shall affirm that a regenerate and justified man is bound to believe that he is certainly in the number of the elect (which, #1Th 1:4,5 plainly teaches. A.W.P.) let such an one be accursed"! "If any one shall affirm with positive and absolute certainty, that he shall surely have the gift of perseverance to the end (which #Joh 10:28-30 assuredly guarantees, A.W.P.); let him be accursed"! In order for any sinner to be saved three things were indispensable: God the Father had to purpose his salvation, God the Son had to purchase it, God the Spirit has to apply it. God does more than "propose" to us: were he only to "invite", every last one of us would be lost. This is strikingly illustrated in the Old Testament. In #Ezr 1:1-3 we read, "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, the Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? His God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel." Here was an "offer" made, made to a people in captivity, affording them opportunity to leave and return to Jerusalem-- God's dwelling place. Did all Israel eagerly respond to this offer? No indeed. The vast majority were content to remain in the enemy's land. Only an insignificant "remnant" availed themselves of this overture of mercy! And why did they? Hear the answer of Scripture: "Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all whose spirit God had stirred up, to go up to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem" (#Ezr 1:5)! In like manner, God "stirs up" the spirits of his elect when the effectual call comes to them, and not till then do they have any willingness to respond to the Divine proclamation.

The superficial work of many of the professional evangelists of the last fifty years is largely responsible for the erroneous views now current upon the bondage of the natural man, encouraged by the laziness of those in the pew in their failure to "prove all things" (#1Th 5:21). The average evangelical pulpit conveys the impression that it lies wholly in the power of the sinner whether or not he shall be saved. It is said that "God has done his part, now man must do his." Alas, what can a lifeless man do, and man by nature is "dead in trespasses and sins" (#Eph 2:1)! If this were really believed, there would be more dependence upon the Holy Spirit to come in with his miracle working power, and less confidence in our attempts to "win men for Christ."

When addressing the unsaved, preachers often draw an analogy between God's sending of the Gospel to the sinner, and a sick man in bed, with some healing medicine on a table by his side: all he needs to do is reach forth his hand and take it. But in order for this illustration to be in any wise true to the picture which Scripture gives us of the fallen and depraved sinner, the sick man in bed must be described as one who is blind (#Eph 4:18) so that he cannot see the medicine, his hand paralysed (#Ro 5:6) so that he is unable to reach forth for it, and his heart not only devoid of all confidence in the medicine but filled with hatred against the physician himself (#Joh 15:18). O what superficial views of man's desperate plight are now entertained! Christ came here not to help those who were willing to help themselves, but to do for his people what they were incapable of doing for themselves: "To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house" (#Isa 42:7).

Now in conclusion let us anticipate and dispose of the usual and inevitable objection--Why preach the Gospel if man is powerless to respond? Why bid the sinner come to Christ if sin has so enslaved him that he has no power in himself to come? Reply:--We do not preach the Gospel because we believe that men are free moral agents, and therefore capable of receiving Christ, but we preach it because we are commanded to do so (#Mr 16:15); and though to them that perish it is foolishness, yet, "unto us which are saved it is the power of God" (#1Co 1:18). "The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (#1Co 1:25). The sinner is dead in trespasses and sins (#Eph 2:1), and a dead man is utterly incapable of willing anything, hence it is that "they that are in the flesh (the unregenerate) cannot please God" (#Ro 8:8).

To fleshly wisdom it appears the height of folly to preach the Gospel to those that are dead, and therefore beyond the reach of doing anything themselves. Yes, but God's ways are different from ours. It pleases God "by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (#1Co 1:21). Man may deem it folly to prophesy to "dead bones" and to say unto them, "O, ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord" (#Eze 37:4). Ah! but then it is the word of the Lord, and the words he speaks "they are spirit, and they are life" (#Joh 6:63). Wise men standing by the grave of Lazarus night pronounce it an evidence of insanity when the Lord addressed a dead man with the words, "Lazarus, Come forth." Ah! but he who thus spake was and is himself the Resurrection and the Life, and at his word even the dead live! We go forth to preach the Gospel, then, not because we believe that sinners have within themselves the power to receive the Saviour it proclaims, but because the Gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, and because we know that "as many as were ordained to eternal life" (#Ac 13:48), shall believe (#Joh 6:37 10:16--note the shall's!) in God's appointed time, for it is written, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" (#Ps 110:3)!

What we have set forth in this chapter is not a product of "modern thought"; no indeed, it is at direct variance with it. It is those of the past few generations who have departed so far from the teachings of their scripturally instructed fathers. In the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England we read, "The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us (being beforehand with us), that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will" (Article 10). In the Westminster Catechism of Faith (adopted by the Presbyterians) we read, "The sinfulness of that state whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the wont of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually" (Answer to question 25). So in the Baptists' Philadelphian Confession of Faith, 1742, we read, "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto" (Chapter 9).

{a} Since writing the above we have read an article by the late J. N. Darby entitled, "Man's so-called freewill", that opens with these words: "This re-appearance of the doctrine of freewill serves to support that of the pretension of the natural man to be not irremediably fallen, for this is what such doctrine tends to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all persons in whom this conviction is based on gross external sins, believe more or less in freewill."

Chapter 8 -- God's Sovereignty And Human Responsibility

"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (#Ro 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" (#Re 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" (#2Ti 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 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 honouring to God and his Word to prayerfully search the Scriptures for the more 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 condemn 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.

1. How is it possible for God to so bring his power to bear upon men that they are prevented from doing what they desire to do, and impelled to do other things they do not desire to do, and yet to preserve their responsibility?

It would seem that if God put forth his power and exerted a direct influence upon men their freedom would be interfered with. It would appear that if God did anything more than warn and invite men their responsibility would be infringed upon. We are told that God must not coerce man, still less compel him, or otherwise he would be reduced to a machine. This sounds very plausible; it appears to be good philosophy, and based upon sound reasoning; it has been almost universally accepted as an axiom in ethics; nevertheless, it is refuted by Scripture!

Let us turn first to #Ge 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 philosophisings 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 #Nu 22:1-24:1-25 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" (#Nu 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" (#Nu 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" (#2Ch 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 #Ge 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 thraldom 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" (#Joh 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" (#2Pe 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 the 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 thraldom 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.

2. 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 #Joh 6:44, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him". The heart of the natural man (every man) is so "desperately wicked" that if he is left to himself he will never "come to Christ." This statement would not be questioned if the full force of the words "Coming to Christ" were properly apprehended. We shall therefore digress a little at this point to define and consider what is implied and involved in the words "No man can come to me"--cf. #Joh 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 favour; 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 #Jos 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" (#Joh 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" (#Ro 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 Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age" (#1Ki 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" (#Jon 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" (#Ge 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 #2Pe 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 #Ro 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?" (#Mt 12:34). "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (#Joh 6:44). Here again it is moral and spiritual inability, which is before us. Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is "drawn"? The answer is, Because his wicked heart loves sin and hates Christ.

We trust we have made it clear that the Scriptures distinguish sharply between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. Surely all can see the difference between the blindness of Bartimaeus, 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" (#Mt 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" (#2Pe 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 cheque, and this he has, but what is lacking is an honest principle. It is his power to write me a cheque which makes him responsible to do so, and the fact that he lacks an honest heart does not destroy his accountability. {a}

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" (#Ro 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,

3. 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" (#Zec 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 recognised 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 deign 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" (#Ac 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" (#Ac 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" (#Ac 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" (#Pr 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 foredetermined 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 (#Joh 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" (#Ac 17:30). Each sinner who hears the Gospel is "commanded" to believe (#1Jo 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" (#2Ti 3:15). It is the sinner's "duty" because the Son of God has commanded him to search the Scriptures (#Joh 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, (#1Ch 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 labour 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' (#Jas 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 hath 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 enquire 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 #De 28:1-68). 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 #Ro 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 #Mt 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." #1Co 15:34, "Awake to righteousness and sin not." #1Jo 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 bound 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" (#Php 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" (#Ro 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 I to 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 help. God is "not far from every one of us" (#Ac 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" (#Ro 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" (#Lu 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, seedtime and harvest...shall not cease" (#Ge 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 fulfils 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 #Ac 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" (#De 29:29).

In #Ac 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" (#Ac 27:31); God appointed that means for the execution of what he had decreed. From #2Ki 20:1-11 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 (#Joh 10:28), yet he "kept under his body" (#1Co 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" (#1Jo 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 paralysing fatalism.

{a} The terms of this example are suggested by an illustration used by the late Andrew Fuller.

Chapter 9 -- God's Sovereignty And Prayer

"If we ask anything according to his will he heareth us" (#1Jo 5:14).

Throughout this book it has been our chief aim to exalt the Creator and abase the creature. The well nigh universal tendency, now, is to magnify man and dishonour and degrade God. On every hand it will be found that, when spiritual things are under discussion, the human side and clement is pressed and stressed, and the divine side, if not altogether ignored, is relegated to the background. This holds true of very much of the modern teaching about prayer. In the great majority of the books written and in the sermons preached upon prayer, the human element fills the scene almost entirely: it is the conditions which we must meet, the promises we must "claim", the things we must do, in order to get our requests granted; and God's claims, God's rights, God's glory are disregarded.

As a fair sample of what is being given out today we sub-join a brief editorial which appeared recently in one of the leading religious weeklies entitled "Prayer, or Fate?"

"God in his sovereignty has ordained that human destinies may be changed and moulded by the will of man. This is at the heart of the truth that prayer changes things, meaning that God changes things when men pray. Some one has strikingly expressed it this way: 'There are certain things that will happen in a man's life whether he prays or not. There are other things that will happen if he prays, and will not happen if he does not pray'. A Christian worker was impressed by these sentences as he entered a business office, and he prayed that the Lord would open the way to speak to some one about Christ, reflecting that things would be changed because he prayed. Then his mind turned to other things and the prayer was forgotten. The opportunity came to speak to the business man on whom he was calling, but he did not grasp it, and was on his way out when he remembered his prayer of half hour before, and God's answer. He promptly returned and had a talk with the business man, who, though a church member, had never in his life been asked whether he was saved. Let us give ourselves to prayer, and open the way for God to change things. Let us beware lest we become virtual fatalists by failing to exercise our God given wills in praying".

The above illustrates what is now being taught on the subject of prayer, and the deplorable thing is that scarcely a voice is lifted in protest. To say that "human destinies may be changed and moulded by the will of man" is rank infidelity--that is the only proper term for it. Should any one challenge this classification, we would ask them whether they can find an infidel anywhere who would dissent from such a statement, and we are confident that such an one could not be found. To say that "God has ordained that human destinies may be changed and moulded by the will of man", is absolutely untrue. "Human destiny" is settled not by "the will of man", but by the will of God. That which determines human destiny is whether or not a man has been born again, for it is written, "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God". And as to whose will, whether God's or man's, is responsible for the new birth is settled, unequivocally, by #Joh 1:13 --"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD". To say that "human destiny" may be changed by the will of man, is to make the creature's will supreme, and that is, virtually, to dethrone God. But what saith the Scriptures? Let the book answer: "The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory" (#1Sa 2:6-8).

Turning back to the Editorial here under review, we are next told, "This is at the heart of the truth that prayer changes things, meaning that God changes things when men pray." Almost everywhere we go today one comes across a motto card bearing the inscription "Prayer Changes Things". As to what these words are designed to signify is evident from the current literature on prayer--we are to persuade God to change his purpose. Concerning this we shall have more to say below.

Again, the Editor tells us, "Some one has strikingly expressed it this way: 'There are certain things that will happen in a man's life whether he prays or not. There are other things that will happen if he prays, anal will not happen if he does not pray'." That things happen whether a man prays or not is exemplified daily in the lives of the unregenerate, most of whom never pray at all. That "other things will happen if he prays" is in need of qualification. If a believer prays in faith and asks for those things which are according to God's will, he will most certainly obtain that for which he has asked. Again, that other things will happen if he prays, is also true in respect to the subjective benefits derived from prayer: God will become more real to him and his promises more precious. That other things "will not happen if he does not pray" is true so far as his own life is concerned--a prayerless life means a life lived out of communion with God and all that is involved by this. But to affirm that God will not and cannot bring to pass his eternal purpose unless we pray, is utterly erroneous, for the same God who has decreed the end has also decreed that his end shall be reached through his appointed means, and one of these is prayer. The God who has determined to grant a blessing, also gives a spirit of supplication which first seeks the blessing.

The example cited in the above Editorial of the Christian worker and the business man is a very unhappy one to say the least, for according to the terms of the illustration the Christian worker's prayer was not answered by God at all, in as much as, apparently, the way was not opened to speak to the business man about his soul. But on leaving the office and recalling his prayer the Christian worker (perhaps in the energy of the flesh) determined to answer the prayer for himself, and instead of leaving the Lord to "open the way" for him, took matters into his own hand.

We quote next from one of the latest books issued on Prayer. In it the author says, "The possibilities and necessity of prayer, its power and results, are manifested in arresting and changing the purposes of God and in relieving the stroke of his power". Such an assertion as this is a horrible reflection upon the character of the Most High God, who "doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay, his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (#Da 4:35). There is no need whatever for God to change his designs or alter his purpose, for the all sufficient reason that these were framed under the influence of perfect goodness and unerring wisdom. Men may have occasion to alter their purposes, for in their short sightedness they are frequently unable to anticipate what may arise after their plans are formed. But not so with God, for he knows the end from the beginning. To affirm that God changes his purpose is either to impugn his goodness or to deny his eternal wisdom.

In the same book we are told, "The prayers of God's saints are the capital stock in heaven by which Christ carries on his great work upon earth. The great throes and mighty convulsions on earth are the results of these prayers. Earth is changed, revolutionized, angels move on more powerful, more rapid wing, and God's policy is shaped as the prayers are more numerous, more efficient". If possible, this is even worse, and we have no hesitation in denominating it as blasphemy. In the first place, it flatly denies #Eph 3:11, which speaks of God's having an "eternal purpose". If God's purpose is an eternal one, then his "policy" is not being "shaped" today. In the second place, it contradicts #Eph 1:11 which expressly declares that God "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will", therefore it follows that, "God's policy" is not being "shaped" by man's prayers. In the third place, such a statement as the above makes the will of the creature supreme, for if our prayers shape God's policy, then is the Most High subordinate to worms of the earth. Well might the Holy Spirit ask through the apostle, "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" (#Ro 11:34).

Such thoughts on prayer as we have been citing are due to low, and inadequate conceptions of God himself. It ought to be apparent that there could be little or no comfort in praying to a God that was like the chameleon, which changes its colour every day. What encouragement is there to lift up our hearts to one who is in one mind yesterday and another today? What would be the use of petitioning an earthly monarch, if we knew he was so mutable as to grant a petition one day and deny it another? Is it not the very unchangeableness of God which is our greatest encouragement to pray? It is because he is "without variableness or shadow of turning" we are assured that if we ask anything according to his will we are most certain of being heard. Well did Luther remark, "Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of his willingness."

And this leads us to offer a few remarks concerning the design of prayer. Why, has God appointed that we should pray? The vast majority of people would reply, In order that we may obtain from God the things which we need. While this is one of the purposes of prayer, it is by no means the chief one. Moreover, it considers prayer only from the human side, and prayer sadly needs to be viewed from the divine side. Let us look, then, at some of the reasons why God has bidden us to pray. First and foremost, prayer has been appointed that the Lord God himself should be honoured. God requires we should recognize that he is, indeed, "the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity" (#Isa 57:15). God requires that we shall own his universal dominion: in petitioning God for rain, Elijah did but confess his control over the elements; in praying to God to deliver a poor sinner from the wrath to come, we acknowledge that "salvation is of the Lord" (#Joh 2:9); in supplicating his blessing on the Gospel unto the uttermost parts of the earth, we declare his rulership over the whole world.

Again; God requires that we shall worship him, and prayer, real prayer, is an act of worship. Prayer is an act of worship in as much as it is the prostrating of the soul before him; in as much as it is a calling upon his great and holy name; in as much as it is the owning of his goodness, his power, his immutability, his grace, and in as much as it is the recognition of his sovereignty, owned by a submission to his will. It is highly significant to notice in this connection that the temple was not termed by Christ the House of Sacrifice, but instead, the House of Prayer.

Again; prayer redounds to God's glory, for in prayer we do but acknowledge our dependency upon him. When we humbly supplicate the Divine Being we cast ourselves upon his power and mercy. In seeking blessings from God we own that he is the Author and Fountain of every good and perfect gift. That prayer brings glory to God is further seen from the fact that prayer calls faith into exercise, and nothing from us is so honouring and pleasing to him as the confidence of our hearts.

In the second place, prayer is appointed by God for our spiritual blessing, as a means for our growth in grace. When seeking to learn the design of prayer, this should ever occupy us before we regard prayer as a means for obtaining the supply of our need. Prayer is designed by God for our humbling. Prayer, real prayer, is a coming into the presence of God, and a sense of his awful majesty produces a realization of our nothingness and unworthiness. Again; prayer is designed by God for the exercise of our faith. Faith is begotten in the Word (#Ro 10:17), but it is exercised in prayer; hence, we lead of "the prayer of faith". Again; prayer calls love into action. Concerning the hypocrite the question is asked, "Will he delight himself in the Almighty? Will he always call upon God?" (#Job 27:10). But they that love the Lord cannot be long away from him, for they delight in unburdening themselves to him. Not only does prayer call love into action, but through the direct answers vouchsafed to our prayers, our love to God is increased--"I love the Lord, because he hath heard my voice and my supplications" (#Ps 116:1). Again; prayer signed by God to teach us the value of the blessings we have sought from him, and it causes us to rejoice the more when he has bestowed upon us that for which we supplicate him.

Third, prayer is appointed by God for our seeking from him the things which we are in need of. But here a difficulty may present itself to those who have read carefully the previous chapters of this book. If God has foreordained, before the foundation of the world, everything which happens in time, what is the use of prayer? If it is true that "of him and through him and to him are all things" (#Ro 11:36), then why pray? Ere replying directly to these queries it should be pointed out how that there is just as much reason to ask, What is the use of me coming to God and telling him what he already knows? wherein is the use of me spreading before him my need, seeing he is already acquainted with it? as there is to object, What is the use of praying for anything when everything has been ordained beforehand by God? Prayer is not for the purpose of informing God, as if he were ignorant, (the Saviour expressly declared "for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him"--#Mt 6:8), but it is to acknowledge he does know what we are in need of. Prayer is not appointed for the furnishing of God with the knowledge of what we need, but it is designed as a confession to him of our sense of the need. In this, as in everything, God's thoughts are not as ours. God requires that his gifts should be sought for. He designs to be honoured by our asking, just as he is to be thanked by us after he has bestowed his blessing.

However, the question still returns on us, If God be the predestinator of everything that comes to pass, and the regulator of all events, then is not prayer a profitless exercise? A sufficient answer to these questions is, that God bids us to pray--"Pray without ceasing" (#1Th 5:17). And again, "men ought always to pray" (#Lu 18:1). And further: Scripture declares that, "the prayer of faith shall save the sick", and, "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (#Jas 5:15,16); while the Lord Jesus Christ--our perfect example in all things--was preeminently a Man of Prayer. Thus, it is evident, that prayer is neither meaningless nor valueless. But still this does not remove the difficulty nor answer the question with which we started out. What then is the relationship between God's sovereignty and Christian prayer?

First of all, we would say with emphasis, that prayer is not intended to change God's purpose, nor is it to move him to form fresh purposes. God has decreed that certain events shall come to pass, but he has also decreed that these events shall come to pass through the means he has appointed for their accomplishment. God has elected certain ones to be saved, but he has also decreed that these ones shall be saved through the preaching of the Gospel. The Gospel, then, is one of the appointed means for the working out of the eternal counsel of the Lord; and prayer is another. God has decreed the means as well as the end, and among the means is prayer. Even the prayers of his people are included in his eternal decrees. Therefore, instead of prayers being in vain, they are among the means through which God exercises his decrees. "If indeed all things happen by a blind chance, or a fatal necessity, prayers in that case could be of no moral efficacy, and of no use; but since they are regulated by the direction of Divine wisdom, prayers have a place in the order of events" (Haldane).

That prayers for the execution of the very things decreed by God are not meaningless, is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Elijah knew that God was about to give rain, but that did not prevent him from at once betaking himself to prayer, (#Jas 5:17,18). Daniel "understood" by the writings of the prophets that the captivity was to last but seventy years, yet when these seventy years were almost ended, we are told that he "set his face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes" (#Da 9:2,3). God told the prophet Jeremiah "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end"; but instead of adding, there is, therefore, no need for you to supplicate me for these things, he said, "Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you" (#Jer 29:12).

Once more; in #Eze 36:1-38 read of the explicit, positive, and unconditional promises which God has made concerning the future restoration of Israel, yet in #Eze 36:37 of this same chapter we are told, "Thus saith the Lord God; I will yet for this be enquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them"! Here then is the design of prayer: not that God's will may be altered, but that it may be accomplished in his own good time and way. It is because God has promised certain things, that we can ask for them with the full assurance of faith. It is God's purpose that his will shall be brought about by his own appointed means and that he may do his people good upon his own terms, and that is, by the "means" and "terms" of entreaty and supplication. Did not the Son of God know for certain that after his death and resurrection he would be exalted by the Father? Assuredly he did. Yet we find him asking for this very thing: "O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (#Joh 17:5)! Did not he know that none of his people could perish? Yet he besought the Father to "keep" them (#Joh 17:11)!

Finally; it should be said that God's will is immutable, and cannot be altered by our cryings. When the mind of God is not toward a people to do them good, it cannot be turned to them by the most fervent and importunate prayers of those who have the greatest interest in him--"Then said the Lord unto me, `Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth'" (#Jer 15:1). The prayers of Moses to enter the promised land is a parallel case.

Our views respecting prayer need to be revised and brought into harmony with the teaching of Scripture on the subject. The prevailing idea seems to be, that I come to God and ask him for something that I want, and that I expect him to give me that which I have asked. But this is a most dishonouring and degrading conception. The popular belief reduces God to a servant, our servant: doing our bidding, performing our pleasure, granting our desires. No; prayer is a coming to God, telling him my need, committing my way unto the Lord, and leaving him to deal with it as seemeth him best. This makes my will subject to his, instead of, as in the former case, seeking to bring his will into subjection to mine. No prayer is pleasing to God unless the spirit actuating it is, "not my will, but thine be done". "When God bestows blessings on a praying people, it is not for the sake of their prayers, as if he was inclined and turned by them; but it is for his own sake, and of his own sovereign will and pleasure. Should it be said, to what purpose then is prayer? It is answered, `This is the way and means God has appointed, for the communication of the blessing of his goodness to his people.' For though he has purposed, provided, and promised them, yet he will be sought unto, to give them, and it is a duty and privilege to ask. When they are blessed with a spirit of prayer, it forebodes well, and looks as if God intended to bestow the good things asked, which should be asked always with submission to the will of God, saying, `Not my will but thine be done'" (John Gill). The distinction just noted above is of great practical importance for our peace of heart. Perhaps the one thing that exercises Christians as much as anything else is that of unanswered prayers. They have asked God for something: so far as they are able to judge, they have asked in faith believing they would receive that for which they had supplicated the Lord: and they have asked earnestly and repeatedly, but the answer has not come. The result is that, in many cases, faith in the efficacy of prayer becomes weakened, until hope gives way to despair and the closet is altogether neglected. Is it not so?

Now will it surprise our readers when we say that every real prayer of faith that has ever been offered to God has been answered? Yet we unhesitatingly affirm it. But in saying this we must refer back to our definition of prayer. Let us repeat it. Prayer is a coming to God, telling him my need (or the need of others), committing my way unto the Lord, and then leaving him to deal with the case as seemeth him best. This leaves God to answer the prayer in whatever way he sees fit, and often, his answer may be the very opposite of what would be most acceptable to the flesh; yet, if we have really LEFT our need in his hands, it will be his answer, nevertheless. Let us look at two examples.

In #Joh 11:1-44 we read of the sickness of Lazarus. The Lord "loved" him, but he was absent from Bethany. The sisters sent a messenger unto the Lord acquainting him of their brother's condition. And note particularly how their appeal was worded--"Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." That was all. They did not ask him to heal Lazarus. They did not request him to hasten at once to Bethany. They simply spread their need before him, committed the case into his hands, and left him to act as he deemed best! And what was our Lord's reply? Did he respond to their appeal and answer their mute request? Certainly he did, though not, perhaps, in the way they had hoped. He answered by abiding "two days still in the same place where he was" (#Joh 11:6), and allowing Lazarus to die! But in this instance, that was not all. Later, he journeyed to Bethany and raised Lazarus from the dead. Our purpose in referring here to this case, is to illustrate the proper attitude for the believer to take before God in the hour of need. The next example will emphasize, rather, God's method of responding to his needy child.

Turn to #2Co 12:1-21. The apostle Paul had been accorded an unheard of privilege. He had been transported into Paradise. His ears have listened to and his eyes have gazed upon that which no other mortal had heard or seen this side of death. The wondrous revelation was more than the apostle could endure. He was in danger of becoming "puffed up" by his extraordinary experience. Therefore, a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, was sent to buffet him lest he be exalted above measure. And the apostle spreads his need before the Lord; he thrice beseeches him that this thorn in the flesh should be removed. Was his prayer answered? Assuredly, though not in the manner he had desired. The "thorn" was not removed, but grace was given to bear it. The burden was not lifted, but strength was vouchsafed to carry it.

Does someone object that it is our privilege to do more than spread our need before God? Are we reminded that God has, as it were, given us a blank cheque and invited us to fill it in? Is it said that the promises of God are all inclusive, and that we may ask God for what we will? If so, we must call attention to the fact that it is necessary to compare scripture with scripture if we are to learn the full mind of God on any subject, and that as this is done we discover God has qualified the promises given to praying souls by saying, "If we ask anything according to his will he heareth us" (#1Jo 5:14). Real prayer is communion with God, so that there will be common thoughts between his mind and ours. What is needed is for him to fill our hearts with his thoughts, and then his desires will become our desires flowing back to him. Here then is the meeting place between God's sovereignty and Christian prayer: If we ask anything according to his will he heareth us, and if we do not so ask, he does not hear us; as saith the apostle James, "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye might consume it upon your lusts" or desires (#Jas 4:3).

But did not the Lord Jesus tell his disciples, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you" (#Joh 16:23)? He did; but this promise does not give praying souls carte blanche. These words of our Lord are in perfect accord with those of the apostle John--"If we ask anything according to his will he heareth us." What is it to ask "in the name of Christ"? Surely it is very much more than a prayer formula, the mere concluding of our supplications with the words "in the name of Christ." To apply to God for anything in the name of Christ, it must needs be in keeping with what Christ is! To ask God in the name of Christ is as though Christ himself were the suppliant. We can only ask God for what Christ would ask. To ask in the name of Christ, is therefore, to set aside our own wills, accepting God's!

Let us now amplify our definition of prayer. What is prayer? Prayer is not so much an act as it is an attitude--an attitude of dependency, dependency upon God. Prayer is a confession of creature weakness, yea, of helplessness. Prayer is the acknowledgment of our need and the spreading of it before God. We do not say that this is all there is in prayer, it is not: but it is the essential, the primary element in prayer. We freely admit that we are quite unable to give a complete definition of prayer within the compass of a brief sentence, or in any number of words. Prayer is both an attitude and an act, a human act, and yet there is the divine element in it too, and it is this which makes an exhaustive analysis impossible as well as impious to attempt. But admitting this, we do insist again, that prayer is fundamentally an attitude of dependency upon God. Therefore, prayer is the very opposite of dictating to God. Because prayer is an attitude of dependency, the one who really prays is submissive, submissive to the divine will; and submission to the divine will means, that we are content for the Lord to supply our need according to the dictates of his own sovereign pleasure. And hence it is that we say, every prayer that is offered to God in this spirit is sure of meeting with an answer or response from him.

Here then is the reply to our opening question, and the scriptural solution to the seeming difficulty. Prayer is not the requesting of God to alter his purpose or for him to form a new one. Prayer is the taking of an attitude of dependency upon God, the spreading of our need before him, then asking for those things which are in accordance with his will, and therefore there is nothing whatever inconsistent between divine sovereignty and Christian prayer.

In closing this chapter we would utter a word of caution to safeguard the reader against drawing a false conclusion from what has been said. We have not here sought to epitomise the whole teaching of Scripture on the subject of prayer, nor have we even attempted to discuss in general the problem of prayer; instead, we have confined ourselves, more or less, to a consideration of the relationship between God's Sovereignty and Christian Prayer. What we have written is intended chiefly as a protest against much of the modern teaching, which so stresses the human element in prayer, that the divine side is almost entirely lost sight of.

In #Jer 10:23 we are told "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (cf. #Pr 16:9); and yet in many of his prayers, man impiously presumes to direct the Lord as to his way, and as to what he ought to do: even implying that if only he had the direction of the affairs of the world and of the church, he would soon have things very different from what they are. This cannot be denied: for anyone with any spiritual discernment at all could not fail to detect this spirit in many of our modern prayer meetings where the flesh holds sway. How slow we all are to learn the lesson that the haughty creature needs to be brought down to his knees and humbled into the dust. And this is where the very act of prayer is intended to put us. But man (in his usual perversity) turns the footstool into a throne, from whence he would fain direct the Almighty as to what he ought to do giving the onlooker the impression that if God had half the compassion that those who pray (?) have, all would quickly be put right! Such is the arrogance of the old nature even in a child of God.

Our main purpose in this chapter has been to emphasize the need for submitting, in prayer, our wills to God's. But it must also be added, that prayer is much more than a pious exercise, and far otherwise than a mechanical performance. Prayer is, indeed, a divinely appointed means whereby we may obtain from God the things we ask, providing we ask for those things which are in accord with his will. These pages will have been penned in vain unless they lead both writer and reader to cry with a deeper earnestness than heretofore, "Lord, teach us to pray" (#Lu 11:1).

Chapter 10 -- Our Attitude Toward God's Sovereignty

"Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight" (#Mt 11:26).

In the present chapter we shall consider, somewhat briefly, the practical application to ourselves of the great truth which we have pondered in its various ramifications in earlier pages. In chapter twelve we shall deal more in detail with the value of this doctrine, but here we would confine ourselves to a definition of what ought to be our attitude toward the sovereignty of God.

Every truth that is revealed to us in God's Word is there not only for our information but also for our inspiration. The Bible has been given to us not to gratify an idle curiosity but to edify the souls of its readers. The sovereignty of God is something more than an abstract principle which explains the rationale of the divine government: it is designed as a motive for godly fear, it is made known to us for the promotion of righteous living, it is revealed in order to bring into subjection our rebellious hearts. A true recognition of God's sovereignty humbles as nothing else does or can humble, and brings the heart into lowly submission before God, causing us to relinquish our own self-will and making us delight in the perception and performance of the divine will.

When we speak of the sovereignty of God we mean very much more than the exercise of God's governmental power, though, of course, that is included in the expression. As we have remarked in an earlier chapter, the sovereignty of God means the Godhood of God. In its fullest and deepest meaning the title of this book signifies the Character and Being of the one whose pleasure is performed and whose will is executed. To truly recognize the sovereignty of God is, therefore, to gaze upon the Sovereign himself. It is to come into the presence of the august "Majesty on High." It is to have a sight of the thrice holy God in his excellent glory. The effects of such a sight may be learned from those scriptures which describe the experience of different ones who obtained a view of the Lord God.

Mark the experience of Job--the one of whom the Lord himself said, "There is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil" (#Job 1:8). At the close of the book which bears his name we are shown Job in the divine presence, and how does he carry himself when brought face to face with Jehovah? Hear what he says: "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth thee: Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (#Job 42:5,6). Thus, a sight of God, God revealed in awesome majesty, caused Job to abhor himself, and not only so, but to abase himself before the Almighty.

Take note of #Isa 6:1-13. In the sixth chapter of his prophecy a scene is brought before us which has few equals even in Scripture. The prophet beholds the Lord upon the Throne, a Throne "high and lifted up." Above this Throne stood the seraphim with veiled faces, crying, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts." What is the effect of this sight upon the prophet? We read, "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts" (#Isa 6:5). A sight of the divine King humbled Isaiah into the dust, bringing him, as it did, to a realization of his own nothingness.

Once more. Look at the prophet Daniel. Toward the close of his life this man of God beheld the Lord in theophanic manifestation. He appeared to his servant in human form "clothed in linen" and with loins "girded with fine gold"--symbolic of holiness and divine glory. We read that, "His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude." Daniel then tells the effect this vision had upon him and those who were with him--"And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves. Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength. Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground" (#Da 10:6-9). Once more, then, we are shown that to obtain a sight of the Sovereign God is for creature strength to wither up, and results in man being humbled into the dust before his Maker. What then ought to be our attitude toward the Supreme Sovereign? We reply,

1. One Of Godly Fear

Why is it that, today, the masses are so utterly unconcerned about spiritual and eternal th