Chapter
XIX
That It
Represents God As A Respecter
Of Persons, Or As Unjustly Partial
1.
Difficulties Faced By All Systems. 2.
God Is No Respecter of Persons. 3. God Plainly Does
Not Treat All People Alike; He Gives to Some What He Withholds From
Others. 4. God's Partiality Is Partly Explained By the
Fact that He Is Sovereign and that His Gifts Are of Grace.
1. DIFFICULTIES FACED BY ALL SYSTEMS
If all men are dead in sin, and destitute of the power to
restore themselves to spiritual life, why, it is asked, does God
exercise His almighty power to regenerate some, while He leaves others
to perish? Justice, it is said, demands that all should have an equal
opportunity; that all should have, either by nature or by grace, power
to secure their own salvation. It is to be remembered, however, that
objections such as these do not bear exclusively against the Calvinistic
system. They are urged by atheists against Theism. It is argued, If God
is infinite in power and holiness, why does He allow so much sin and
misery to exist in the world? And why are the wicked often allowed to
prosper through long periods of time, while the righteous often must
endure poverty and suffering?
It is plain enough that the anti-Calvinistic systems can
offer no real solutions for these difficulties. Admitting that
regeneration is the sinner's own act, and that every man has sufficient
ability and knowledge to secure his own salvation, it remains true that
in the present state of the world only comparatively few are saved, and
that God does not interpose to prevent the majority of adult men from
perishing in their sins. Calvinists do not deny that these difficulties
exist; they only maintain that such problems are not peculiar to their
system, and they rest content with the partial solution of them which is
given in the Scriptures. The Bible teaches that man was created holy;
that he deliberately disobeyed the divine law and fell into sin; that as
a result of that fall Adam's posterity come into the world in a state of
spiritual death; that God never pushes them into further sin, but that
on the contrary He exerts influences which should induce rational
creatures to repent and seek His sanctifying grace; that all who
sincerely repent and seek this grace are saved; and that by the exercise
of His mighty power, vast multitudes which otherwise would have
continued in their sin are brought to salvation.
2. GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS
A "respecter of persons" is one who, acting as judge,
does not treat those who come before him according to their character,
but who withholds from some what is justly theirs and gives to others
what is not justly theirs—one who is governed by prejudice and sinister
motives, rather than by justice and law. The Scriptures deny that God is
a respecter of persons in this sense; and if the doctrine of
Predestination represented God as doing these things, we admit that it
would charge Him with injustice.
In the Scriptures God is said to be no respecter of
persons, for He does not choose one and reject another because of
outward circumstances such as race, nationality, wealth, power,
nobility, etc. Peter says that God is no respecter of persons because He
makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. His conclusion after
being divinely sent to preach to the Roman centurion, Cornelius, was,
"Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in
every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is acceptable
to Him," Acts 10:35. Throughout their entire past history the Jews had
believed that they as a people were the exclusive objects of God's
favor. A careful reading of Acts 10:1 to 11:18 will show what a
revolutionary idea it was that the Gospel should be preached to the
Gentiles also.
Paul likewise says, "Glory and honor and peace to every
man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek; for
there is no respect of persons with God," Romans 2:10, 11. And again,
"There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free,
there can be no male and female; for they all are one man in Christ
Jesus." Then he adds that it is not those who are Jews externally, but
those who are Christ's that are in the highest sense "Abraham's seed,"
and "heirs according to the promise," Galatians 3:28, 29. In Ephesians
6:5-9 the slaves and the masters are commanded to treat each other
justly; for God, who is the Master of both, is no respecter of persons;
and likewise in Colossians 3 :25 the relations between fathers and
children and between wives and husbands are included. James says that
God is no respecter of persons because He makes no distinction between
the rich and poor, nor between those who wear fine clothing and those
who are plainly dressed (2:1-9). The term "person" in these verses
signifies, not the inner man, or the soul, but the outward appearance,
which often carries so much influence with us. Hence when the Scriptures
say that God is no respecter of persons they do not mean that He treats
all people alike, but that the reason for His saving one and rejecting
another is not that one is a Jew and the other a Gentile, or that the
one is rich and the other poor, etc.
3. GOD PLAINLY DOES NOT TREAT ALL PEOPLE ALIKE; HE GIVES
TO SOME WHAT HE WITHHOLDS FROM OTHERS
It is a fact that in His providential government of the
world God does not confer the same or equal favors upon all people. The
inequality is too glaring to be denied. The Scriptures tell us, and the
experiences of every day life show us, that there is the greatest
variety in the distribution of these, — and justly so, for all of these
are of grace, and not of debt. The Calvinist here falls back upon
the experienced reality of facts. It is true, and no argument can
disprove it, that men in this world find themselves unequally favored,
both in inward disposition and outward circumstances. One child is born
to health, honor, wealth, of eminently good and wise parents who train
him up from infancy in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and who
afford him every opportunity of being taught the truth as it is in the
Scriptures. Another is born to disease, shame, poverty, of dissipated
and depraved parents who reject and ridicule and despise Christianity,
and who take care to prevent their child from coming under the influence
of the Gospel. Some are born with susceptible hearts and consciences,
which make lives of innocence and purity natural for them; others are
born with violent passions, or even with distinct tendencies to evil,
which seemingly are inherited and unconquerable. Some are happy, others
are miserable. Some are born in Christian and civilized lands where they
are carefully educated and watched over; others are born in complete
heathen darkness. As a general rule the child that is surrounded with
the proper Christian influences becomes a devout Christian and lives a
life of great service, while the other whose character is formed under
the influence of corrupt teaching and example lives in wickedness and
dies impenitent. The one is saved and the other is lost. And will any
one deny that the influences favorable to salvation which are brought to
bear upon some individuals are far more favorable than those brought to
bear upon others? Will it not be admitted by every candid individual
that if the persons had changed places, they probably would have changed
characters also? — that if the son of the godly parents had been the son
of infidels, and had lived under the same corrupting influences, he
would, in all probability, have died in his sins? In His mysterious
providence God has placed persons under widely different influences, and
the results are widely different. He of course foresaw these different
results before the persons were born. These are facts which no one can
deny or explain away. And if we are to believe that the world is
governed by a personal and intelligent Being, we must also believe that
these inequalities have not risen by chance or accident, but through
purpose and design, and that the lot of every individual has been
determined by the sovereign good pleasure of God. "Even Arminians," says
N. L. Rice, "are obliged to acknowledge that God does make great
differences in the treatment of the human family, not only in the
distribution of temporal blessings, but of spiritual gifts also, — a
difference which compels them, if they would be consistent, to hold the
doctrine of election . . . . If the sending of the Gospel to a people,
with the divine influence accompanying it, does not amount to a
personal election, most assuredly the withholding of it from a
people amounts generally to reprobation." 1
Calvinists merely assume that in the dispensation of His
grace God acts precisely as He does in giving other favors. If it were
unjust in principle for God to be partial in the distribution of
spiritual goods, it would be no less unjust for Him to be partial in His
distribution of temporal goods. But as a matter of fact we find that in
the exercise of His absolute sovereignty He makes the greatest possible
distinctions among men from birth, and that He does so irrespective of
any personal merits both in the allotments of temporal goods and of the
essential means to salvation. Hence the statement that the Holy Spirit "divideth
to each one severally as He will," 1 Corinthians 12:11; and nowhere in
Scripture is it said that God is impartial in the communication of His
grace. In regard to His dealings with nations we find that God has
favored some much more highly than others,— namely, Israel in ancient
times, and Europe and America in modern times, while Africa and the
Orient have lain in darkness and under the curse of false religions,—
and this is a fact which all must admit.
Although the Jews were a small and disobedient people,
God conferred favors on them which He did not give to the other nations
of the world. "You only have I known of all the families of the earth,"
Amos 3:2. "He hath not dealt so with any nation; And as for His
ordinances, they have not known them," Psalm 147:20. And again, "What
advantage then hath the Jew? Or what is the advantage of circumcision?
Much every way: first of all, that they were entrusted with the
oracles of God," Romans 3:1, 2. These favors did not come because of any
merits in the Jews themselves, for they were repeatedly reproached for
being "a stiff-necked and rebellious people." In Matthew 11:25 we read
of a prayer in which Jesus said, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of
heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and
understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes; yea, Father, for so it
was well-pleasing in thy sight." In those words He thanked the Father
for doing that very thing which Arminians exclaim against as unjust and
censure as partial.
If it be asked, Why does God not bestow the same or equal
blessings upon all people? we can only answer, that has not been fully
revealed. We see that in actual life He does not treat all alike. For
wise reasons known to Himself, He has given to some blessings to which
they had no claim— thus making them great debtors to His grace — and has
withheld from others gifts which He was under no obligation to bestow.
There is, in fact, no single member of this fallen race
who is not treated by his Maker better than he deserves. And
since grace is favor shown to the undeserving, God has the sovereign
right to bestow more grace upon one subject than upon another. "The
bestowment of common grace upon the non-elect," says W. G. T. Shedd,
"shows that non-election does not exclude from the kingdom of heaven by
Divine efficiency, because common grace is not only an invitation
to believe and repent, but an actual help toward it; and a help
that is nullified solely by the resistance of the non-elect, and not by
anything in the nature of common grace, or by any preventive action of
God. The fault or the failure of common grace to save the sinner, is
chargeable to the sinner alone; and he has no right to plead a fault of
his own as the reason why he is entitled to special grace."
2
If it be objected that God must give every man an
opportunity to be saved, we reply that the outward call does give every
man who hears it an opportunity to be saved. The message is: "Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." This is an opportunity
to be saved; and nothing outside the man's own nature prevents his
believing. Shedd has expressed this idea very well in the following
words: "A beggar who contemptuously rejects the five dollars offered by
a benevolent man, cannot charge stinginess upon him because after this
rejection of the five dollars he does not give him ten. Any sinner who
complains of God's passing him by' in the bestowment of regenerating
grace after his abuse of common grace, virtually says to the High and
Holy one who inhabits eternity, 'Thou hast tried once to convert me from
sin; now try again, and try harder.' " 3
A strong argument against the Arminian objection that
this doctrine makes God unjustly partial, is found in the fact that
while God has extended His saving grace toward fallen men, He has made
no provision for the redemption of the Devil and the fallen angels. If
it was consistent with God's infinite goodness and justice to pass by
the whole body of fallen angels and to leave them to suffer the
consequences of their sin, then certainly it is consistent with His
goodness and justice to pass by some of the fallen race of men and to
leave them in their sin. When the Arminian admits that Christ died not
for the fallen angels or demons, but only for fallen men, he admits
limited atonement and in principle makes the same kind of a distinction
as does the Calvinist who says that Christ died for the elect only.
Men, with their limited and often mistaken knowledge,
have no right to censure God's distribution of His grace. It would be as
unreasonable to charge Him with injustice for not having made all of His
creatures angels, and for not having preserved them in holiness as He
did the angels in heaven and as He had power to do, as to charge Him
with injustice for not having redeemed all mankind. It is as hard for us
to understand why He allows any to perish eternally, as for us to
understand why He saves some and not others. He plainly does not prevent
the perdition of those whom, beyond doubt, He has the power to save. And
if those who admit God's providence say that He has wise reasons for
permitting so many of our race to perish, those who advocate His
sovereignty can say that He has wise reasons for saving some and not
others. It might as reasonably be argued that since God punishes some,
He should punish all; but no one goes to that extreme.
It may be admitted that from our human view-point it
would seem more plausible and more consistent with the character of God
that sin and misery should never have been allowed to enter the
universe; or if, when they had entered, provision had been made for
their ultimate elimination from the system, so that all rational
creatures should be perfectly holy and happy for eternity. There would
be no end to such plans if every person were at liberty to construct a
plan of divine operations in accordance with his oven views as to what
would be wisest and best. We are, however, shut up to the facts as they
are found in the Bible, in the providential workings about us, and in
our own religious experiences; and we find that only the Calvinistic
system is satisfied by these.
4. GOD'S PARTIALITY IS PARTLY EXPLAINED BY THE FACT THAT
HE IS SOVEREIGN AND THAT HIS GIFTS ARE OF GRACE
It cannot be said that God acts unjustly toward those who
are not included in this plan of salvation. People who make this
objection neglect to take into consideration the fact that God is
dealing not merely with creatures but with sinful creatures who have
forfeited every claim upon His mercy. Augustine well said: "Damnation is
rendered to the wicked as a matter of debt, justice and desert, whereas
the grace given to those who are delivered is free and unmerited, so
that the condemned sinner cannot allege that he is unworthy of his
punishment, nor the saint vaunt or boast as if he were worthy of his
reward. Thus, in the whole course of this procedure, there is no respect
of persons. They who are condemned and they who are set at liberty
constituted originally one and the same lump, equally infected with sin
and liable to vengeance. Hence the justified may learn from the
condemnation of the rest that that would have been their own punishment
had not God's grace stepped in to their rescue." And to the same effect
Calvin says, "The Lord, therefore, may give grace to whom He will,
because He is merciful, and yet not give it to all because He is a just
Judge; may manifest His free grace by giving to some what they never
deserve, while by not giving to all He declares the demerit of all."
"Partiality," in the sense that objectors commonly use
the word, is impossible in the sphere of grace. It can exist only in the
sphere of justice, where the persons concerned have certain claims
and rights. We may give to one beggar and not to another for we
do not owe anything to either. The parable of the talents was
spoken by our Lord to illustrate the doctrine of the Divine sovereignty
in the bestowment of unmerited gifts; and the regeneration of the
soul is one of the greatest of these gifts.
The central teaching in the parable of the laborers in
the vineyard is that God is sovereign in the dispensation of His gifts.
To the saved and the unsaved alike He can say, "Friend, I do thee no
wrong... Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Or is
thine eye evil, because I am good?" Matthew 20:13-15. It was said to
Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have
compassion on whom I will have compassion"; and Paul adds, "So then it
is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
hath mercy . . . . . So then He hath mercy on whom He will and whom He
will He hardeneth," Romans 9:15-18. He will extend mercy to some, and
inflict justice on others, and will be glorified by all. Just as a man
may give alms to some and not to others, so God may give His grace,
which is heavenly alms, to whom He pleases. Grace, from its own nature,
must be free; and the very inequality of its distribution demonstrates
that it is truly gratuitous. If any one could justly demand it, it would
cease to be grace and would become of debt. If God is robbed of His
sovereignty in this respect, salvation then becomes a matter of debt to
every person.
If ten men each owe a certain creditor one thousand
dollars and he for reasons of his own forgives the debts of seven but
collects from the other three, the latter have no grounds for complaint.
If three criminals are sentenced to be hanged for having committed
murder and then two of them are pardoned — perhaps it is found that they
have rendered distinguished service to their country in time of war—
does that render the execution of the third unjust? Plainly, No; for in
his case there is no intervening cause as to why he should not suffer
for his crime. And if an earthly prince may .justly do this, shall not
the sovereign Lord of all be allowed to act in the same manner toward
His rebellious subjects? When all mankind might have been punished, how
can God be charged with injustice if He punishes only a part of them? —
and that no doubt a comparatively small part.
Warburton gives a very fitting illustration here. He
supposes a case in which a lady goes to an orphans' home and from the
hundreds of children there, chooses one, adopts it as her own child and
leaves the rest. "She might have chosen others; she had the means to
keep others; but she chose one. Will you tell me that woman is unjust?
Will you tell me that she is unfair, or unrighteous, because in the
exercise of her undisputed right and privilege she chose out that one
child to enjoy the comforts of her home, and become the heir of her
possessions, and left all the others, possibly to perish in want, or
sink into the wretched condition of gutter-children? . . . . Have you
ever heard any lay the charge of injustice, or of unrighteousness
against the one who has done such an action? Do men not rather hold such
an action up to praise? Do they not speak in the highest terms of the
love, the pity, and the compassion of such a person ? Now why do they do
this? Why do they not condemn the taking of the one, and the leaving of
the rest? Why do they not complain that it was unjust for this
particular one to be chosen, and not another, or not all? . . . . The
reason is this— because men know — as we also know— that all those
children were in exactly the same plight and that not one of them had a
single claim, or the least vestige of a claim, upon the person whose
will and pleasure it was to adopt one as her own . . . . Do you, or
can you, see anything different in this act of God's from that of my
neighbor's? The children in that foundling home had no claim upon my
neighbor. Neither had fallen man any claim upon God; and God's choice,
therefore, just as it was free and unmerited, so was it also righteous
and just. And this free and unmerited fore-choice of God in view of
man's self-procured ruin, is all that is meant by the Calvinistic
doctrine of Predestination."
Since the merits of Christ's sacrifice were of infinite
value, the plan which usually first suggests itself to our hearts is
that God should have saved all. But He chose to make an eternal
exhibition of His justice as well as His mercy. If every person had been
saved, it would not have been seen what sin deserved; if no person had
been saved, it would not have been seen what grace could bestow.
Furthermore, the fact that salvation was provided, not for all, but only
for some, makes it all the more appreciated by those to whom it is
given. All in all, it was best for the universe at large that some
should be permitted to have their own way and thus show what a dreadful
thing is opposition to God.
But some one may ask, What about this unregenerate man,
this one of the non-elect who is left in sin, subject to eternal
punishment, unable even to see the kingdom of God? We reply, Go back to
the doctrine of original sin,— in Adam, who was appointed the federal
head and representative of all his descendants, the race had a most fair
and favorable opportunity to gain salvation, but lost it. The
justification for the election of some and the passing by of others is
that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Doubtless
there are the best of reasons for the choosing of some and the passing
by of others, but these have not been made known to us. We do know,
however, that none of the lost suffer any unmerited punishment. In this
world they enjoy the good things of providence in common with the
children of God, and very often in a much higher degree. Conscience and
experience testify that we are members of an apostate race, and every
man who comes short of eternal life knows that the responsibility rests
primarily upon himself. Furthermore, if all men are in their present
lost and ruined condition by the operation of just principles on the
part of God (and who will say that they are not?), they may justly be
left to deserved punishment. It is absurd to say that they are justly
exposed to eternal misery, and yet that it would be unjust for them to
suffer; for that is the same as saying that the execution of a just
penalty is unjust. It may also be added that man in his fallen state has
no desire for salvation, and that from this corrupt mass God "hath mercy
on whom He will and whom He will He hardeneth." This is the uniform
teaching of Scripture. He who denies this denies Christianity and calls
in question God's government of the world.
As a matter of fact all of us are partial. We treat the
members of our own family or our friends with great partiality, although
at the time we may know that they are no more deserving, or perhaps even
less deserving than are many others with whom we are associated. It does
not follow that if we grant favors to some, we must grant the same or
equal favors to all. Yet the Arminian absolutely prescribes it as a rule
to the Most High, that He ought to extend His bounty to all equally as
from a public treasury. "Should an earthly friend," says Toplady, "make
me a present of ten thousand pounds, would it not be unreasonable,
ungrateful and presumptuous in me, to refuse the gift, and revile the
giver, only because it might not be his pleasure to confer the same
favor on my next door neighbor?"
Hence, then, to the objection that the doctrine of
Predestination represents God as "partial," we answer, It certainly
does. But we insist that it does not represent Him as unjustly
partial.
