“The election is on the righteous One and as a man becomes righteous through Christ the righteous head dwelling in him by faith, so also does he become elect.”
Erskine scholar Don Horrocks, in his book Laws of the Spiritual Order: Innovation and Reconstruction in the Soteriology of Thomas Erskine of Linlathen, often highlights the remarkable ways Thomas Erskine, writing in the early 19th century, anticipated Karl Barth’s twentieth-century theology. Erskine’s The Doctrine of Election is a prime example.
The Doctrine of Election &c.
Object and Plan of the Work
My object in this treatise is to set forth, as distinctly and simply as I can, the grounds on which I have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of God’s Election, as taught in the Bible, is altogether different from and opposed to that which has passed under the name of the Doctrine of Election and been received as such by a great part of the professing church through many ages. I know that this undertaking will appear to many nothing else than a foolish and presumptuous attempt to pry into the secret counsels of God and to bring down to the level of man’s understanding that which he has placed above it. But God knows that this is not true. He knows that I have undertaken the exposition of this subject only in as far as I see that it belongs not to the secret things from which man is shut out but to the revealed things which man is invited and required to know in order that he may do the will of God. And because I know that the minds of many, especially in this country of Scotland, are much prepossessed by the doctrine here condemned, I earnestly and solemnly as in the presence of God entreat the reader to give me his honest attention that he may be able to judge truly whether in treating the question I endeavor to make out a case by setting aside or passing over any part of Scripture or by putting forced interpretations on any expressions contrary to the tenor of the passages in which they occur or, on the contrary, whether I do not uniformly ground the argument on the general scope of Scripture and on the natural meaning and tenor of the passages generally cited in support of the received view of the doctrine giving its full weight to every expression as one who does not wish to escape from the will of God but to discover it.
Election as Generally Held
The doctrine of election generally held is that God, according to His own inscrutable purpose, has from all eternity chosen in Christ and predestinated unto salvation a certain number of individuals out of the fallen race of Adam and that, in pursuance of this purpose, as these individuals come into the world, He in due season visits them by a peculiar operation of His Spirit thereby justifying, and sanctifying, and saving them whilst He passes by the rest of the race unvisited by that peculiar operation of the Spirit and so abandoned to their sins and their punishment. It is also an essential part of the doctrine that the peculiar operation of the Spirit by which God draws the elect unto Himself is held to be alike irresistible and indispensable in the work of salvation so that those to whom it is applied cannot be lost and those to whom it is not applied cannot be saved whilst all the outward calls of the gospel and what are named common operations of the Spirit which are granted to the reprobate as well as to the elect are, when unaccompanied by that peculiar operation, ineffectual to salvation and do only aggravate the condemnation of the reprobate.
Objections to View Generally Held
I held this doctrine for many years modified however inconsistently by the belief of God’s love to all and of Christ having died for all—and yet, when I look back on the state of my mind during that period, I feel that it would be truer to say I submitted to it than that I believed it. I submitted to it because I did not see how the language of the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans and of a few similar passages could bear any other interpretation, and yet, I could not help feeling that on account of what appeared to be the meaning of these few difficult passages, I was giving up the plain and obvious meaning of all the rest of the Bible, which seems continually in the most unequivocal language and in every page to say to every man, “See I have set before thee this day, life and good, death and evil, therefore choose life that thou mayest live.”1 I could not help feeling that if the above representation were true, then, that on which a real and righteous responsibility in man can alone be founded was awanting and the slothful servant had reason when in vindication of his unprofitableness, he said, “I knew thee, that Thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed.”2 Above all, I could not help feeling that if God were such as that doctrine described Him, then the Creator of every man was not the friend of every man nor the righteous object of confidence to every man, and that when Christ was preached to sinners, the whole truth of God was not preached to them for that there was something behind Christ in the mind of God giving Him to one and withholding Him from another so that the ministry of reconciliation was only an appendix to a deeper and more dominant ministry in which God appeared simply as a Sovereign without any moral attribute, and man was dealt with as a mere creature of necessity without any real responsibility.
Reasons for Submission to it Answered
I at that time used to answer and rebuke this doubt of my heart by the words, though I now see not by the meaning of Scripture, “Who art thou that repliest against God?”3 and by the consideration that the finite understanding of man was incapable of comprehending the infinite mind of God. But still I remained unsatisfied because I met with passages in the Bible in which God invites and calls upon men to judge of the equality and righteousness of his ways, placing himself as it were at the bar of their consciences and claiming from them a judgment testifying to his righteousness and clearing him of all inequality and that not on the ground that his righteousness is above their understanding—far less on the ground that in Scripture, he has a sovereign right to do as He pleases—but on the ground that his righteousness is such as men can judge of and because it is clear and plain to that principle of judgment within them by which they approve or condemn their own actings and the actings of their fellow-men.
God’s Appeals in Scripture to the Consciences of Men
The passages to this effect which struck me most forcibly were the 18th and 33rd chapters of Ezekiel and the 5th chapter of Isaiah. I shall transcribe the greatest part of the 18th of Ezekiel that I may bring the reader face to face with it. “The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die” “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God; and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, the way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel, Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth to be Judged of and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye”
God’s Righteousness to be Judged of by the Consciences of Men
It appeared to me impossible to read this passage without perceiving that the righteousness of God is assumed throughout to be a righteousness which man is capable of comprehending and appreciating—and that although His sovereignty is incontestable, He yet, in a manner, holds Himself accountable to the consciences of His intelligent creatures for the way in which He exercises it.
It further appeared to me that this passage according to its obvious and natural signification contained not only a denial of the existence of an eternal purpose of God by which any of the race of man are passed by and left to their sins and their punishment but also the assertion of the existence of an opposite purpose in God towards them even that they should turn from their sins and be saved—and also, that it contained a denial that the difference between the righteous and the wicked arose from God’s applying any peculiar irresistible operation of the Spirit to the former and withholding it from the latter because such dealing on the part of God would destroy the very ground of the appeal so strongly urged through the whole chapter, in as much as the intelligible equality of His judgment on both classes depends entirely on the essential and true sufficiency of the spiritual provision made for both of them.
It further appeared to me that if men as a race had through the fall of Adam lost any capacity of knowing and serving God which was not restored to them also as a race in the gift of Jesus Christ, then the proverb that “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” would have been true, but God in asserting the equality of his ways denies the truth of this proverb in terms which mark that its truth would according to His judgment be incompatible with equality. I may here observe that this proverb is amongst us also and that its form now is, “Although man by the fall has lost the power to obey, God has not lost the right to demand obedience.” But, in any form such a proverb God disclaims as inconsistent with the equality of his ways.
The passage in Isaiah is equally clear in all these points. “Now will I sing to my well beloved, a song of my beloved touching His vineyard. My beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill, and He fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress there in, and He looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge I pray you between me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?” (Isaiah 5:1–4).
Here again it appeared to me that God’s righteousness is assumed to be such as can be judged of and appreciated by man, even in his unregenerate state, for the invitation to judge is here addressed to the men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, the very criminals on whom the sentence is pronounced. It is before them that God pleads his cause and what is the amount of His pleading? The sufficiency of the provision made for enabling them to meet His demand is that which He sets forth as the proof of His righteousness, both in making these demands and in punishing them for not meeting them. And this provision He lays before themselves that they may say whether they can find any defect or inadequacy in it. He thus evidently assumes that the righteousness of His requirement and judgment is a righteousness of which man can judge and ought to judge by the same rule as that which he applies to his own conduct and to that of his fellowmen. And He asserts that His righteousness, when tried by this rule, will be found conformable to it.
There are many passages in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, which are equally strong and pointed with those which I have noticed, against the generally received doctrine of election, but I shall not at present cite more as my reader may probably be in the condition in which I was myself when first these things were presented to me. I acknowledged the force of the passages—I acknowledged my inability to interpret them in consistency with the doctrine of election—I fully admitted the responsibility of man and the righteousness of God—but I could not allow any logical conclusions of my own understanding to interfere with my submission to the inspired word, and therefore, I still felt that whilst the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans continued to be an undisputed part of Divine Revelation, it would be an act of ungodly presumption in me to reject a doctrine which appeared to be so manifestly contained in it.
Reasons for still Adhering to the Common View
I felt also that there was something in the doctrine to which my own heart bore witness as being true to experience as well as glorifying to God, namely that there was nothing good in man but what was of the direct acting of the Spirit of God, and therefore, I could not receive any argument against the doctrine which proceeded on the ground of an inherent self-quickening power in man.
What I required, then, in order really to free my conscience from the power of this doctrine was to discover in the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans and some other similar passages an unforced natural meaning different from that which hitherto they had borne to me and in that new meaning to find also what might correspond with my distinct experience of the action of the Spirit of God within me in opposition to the spirit of my own will.
Light received from Jeremiah 18
I continued then to read this dark chapter from time to time hoping always that it would please God to give me further light upon it, for I felt quite free to do this in humility because God had said, “Judge, I pray you, between me and my vineyard.”4 The first ray of light that visited me in this course was in reading the 18th chapter of Jeremiah to which the 21st verse of the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans evidently refers. No part of the chapter appeared to me more dark than this 21st verse for it seemed as if in it the apostle were claiming for God the right of making a man wicked and then denying to the man the right of complaining that he had been so made. “Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honors and another unto dishonour?”
These verses do certainly seem to assert in unequivocal terms the Calvinistic doctrine of election but let us turn to the 18th chapter of Jeremiah to which they refer. In the beginning of that chapter it is thus written: “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter’s house, and behold he wrought a work on the wheels, and the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you, as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel” (verses 1–6).
The Parable of the Potter, Apparently in Favor of the Common View,
This passage so far as we yet see appears to give full confirmation to the Calvinistic interpretation of the 9th chapter of the Romans. It seems to say that as the potter has the right of making or marring a vessel, as may appear good to him, so God claims to Himself the right of making or marring the character and condition of a man as seems good to Him and that as the potter in this particular instance appeared to have chosen to mar a vessel so God would choose to mar the condition of some men without giving any reason but His own sovereign pleasure. Such a claim on the part of God were indeed a fearful thing, but if this be really the meaning of the passage, there is no replying to it, and we must either acknowledge the Calvinistic doctrine of election in its darkest extent or deny the authority of the Scriptures.
But this is not the true meaning of the passage as we shall see by merely going on to the following verses in which God himself makes the application of the spectacle which He had brought the prophet to witness in the potter’s house. “O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a people, to pluck up and to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them. Now, therefore, go to, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Behold I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you, RETURN YE NOW EVERY ONE from his evil ways, and make his ways and his doings good” (verses 6–11).
Is Really Opposed to the Common View
I saw from this inspired application and interpretation of the action which the prophet witnessed in the potter’s house that what, to a superficial reader, appears to be the meaning of the passage is not its real meaning. I saw that it contained a meaning not only different from but opposed to the ordinary doctrine of election, for it declared that the future prospects of men were placed by God in their own hands and that, as God’s promises and threatenings were addressed not to individuals but to characters, a man by changing his character might change God’s dealing towards him. I saw that it was adduced for the purpose of maintaining, not that the potter had a right to make a vessel good or bad according to his own pleasure, but that he had a right if a vessel turned out ill in his hands, to reject that vessel and break it down and make it up anew into another vessel. The right of making a thing bad is not contemplated at all in the passage—the matter considered is whether the potter, after having once made a vessel, is bound to preserve it although it turns out quite unfit for the purpose for which it was made or whether in such a case, he has the right of rejecting it. And as the exercise of this right of rejection on the part of the potter is unquestioned, although his works do not go wrong by their own fault, much more does God claim to Himself the right of rejecting a people whom He had set up for a particular purpose if they refused to answer that purpose.
We read in the following chapter that the prophet was desired to carry on and conclude this allegorical instruction to Judah by taking a potter’s vessel and breaking it at the entering in of the east gate of Jerusalem as a sign of the rejection of the Jews and the desolation of the city because they refused to answer God’s purposes in setting them up. They were thus warned that God was not bound to them merely because He had once chosen them for His people but that He was at liberty to reject them, because they had rejected Him.
The Jewish Notion of Unconditional Election Disclaimed by God
It is most notable through the whole history of the Jews, both in the Old and New Testament, that they were continually falling into the error against which this instruction was given to guard them. They thought that because they were God’s chosen people and the depositaries of His promises concerning the Messiah they were therefore secure however much they sinned—they thought that God was bound to fulfil those promises to them and could not, without forfeiting His own truth, cast them off—they thought there was an absolute decree interposed between them and rejection. And as this error blinded them to the danger of sin and the nature of God’s righteousness, God set His face against it from the beginning of His communications to them. Thus, when they rebelled against Him in the wilderness by refusing to go forward into the land of Canaan on account of the evil report brought back by the spies, He took them at their own word and said, “Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun” “After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise” (Numbers 14:30, 34).
The context of the passage in Jeremiah proves that it was to guard against this very error of supposing themselves unconditionally elected that the parable of the potter was spoken, for it is introduced immediately after the utterance of great promises and great threatenings as the reader will see by looking back to the 17th chapter from the 19th verse to the end where it is declared that if the people would really hallow the Sabbath, then there should enter into the gates of the city kings and princes sitting on the throne of David and the city should remain forever, whereas if they profaned the Sabbath, a fire should be kindled in the gates of the city which should devour its palaces and should not be quenched. It was to guard against their besetting error and lest they should, according to their manner, shelter themselves under the former distinguishing mercies of God to them and thus put away the fear of His present threatenings as if He were restrained by His own faithfulness from executing them that the prophet is here commissioned to expound to them the true nature of their standing and of the standing of all men before God—namely, that He in very deed judges men according to their characters and makes promises and threatenings to them simply in relation to their characters and with the view of drawing them out of evil into good and that in accordance with this principle, He would in righteousness cast off the Jewish people notwithstanding all his promises to them if they refused to fill the office of His witnesses which He had designed them to fill and would raise up a people in their room who would fill it. And as He had at first made their nation a vessel unto honor, so if they refused to answer their honorable calling, He would make them a vessel unto dishonor by openly rejecting them and inflicting on them a punishment as signal as was their former preferment.
Romans 9 Illustrated by Romans 3
Here, therefore, I found a plain and natural solution of the difficulty in Romans 9:21, and I saw that this apparently dark passage was in truth nothing else than an assertion of God’s right to cast off the Jews from being His visible church and that the apostle was arguing here with his countrymen exactly in the same strain as he had already been doing in a former part of the epistle (chap. 3:5, 6) answering in both places their self-justifying murmurs and excuses with the same summary declaration of God’s right to judge them and righteousness in punishing them. A comparison of the two passages will satisfy the reader that the same subject is treated in both and that the question (chap 9:21) “Hath not the potter power over the clay?” (or, better and more literally, “right over the clay?) corresponds exactly with the question, “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?” in chapter 3.
Romans 9
I thought also that I discerned a similarity between the Jewish apologies in both the passages which changed considerably my apprehension of chapter 9:19. It seemed to me that the spirit of the defense set up chapter. 3:7, “For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner” is very nearly allied to that of the defense in chapter 9:19, “Why doth he yet find fault, for who hath resisted his will?” and hence I concluded that in the latter case as well as in the former, the apostle means altogether to deny and disallow the principle of the defense and not merely to rebuke the presumption of it and that his answer in both cases meant to convey to them that they knew in their consciences that God was righteous in holding them responsible for their doings. I was further confirmed by the contents of the 10th and 11th chapters, which relate to the casting off of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, that this view of the potter’s right over the clay was the true view of the passage.
Romans 9 Illustrated by Galatians 4:22, 24
At about the same time I received a very satisfying light on the preceding portion of the chapter from an expression used in it, which I am surprised has been so little considered by interpreters and commentators. I transcribe the 7th and 8th verses, “Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called, that is, they which are the children of the flesh, they are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” The expression to which I refer is, “that is.” I could not help seeing that this expression indicated that the history of Ishmael and Isaac was intended by God to be a great type or parable by which He might give public warning when He was calling the family of Abraham to be His visible church on the earth, that His real choice rested not on a natural family but on a character and that not the flesh but the spirit should inherit the blessing. Let the reader turn to Galatians 4: 22 where this same history is introduced and let him observe verse 24 where it is said, “which things are an allegory,” and then let him consider whether this latter phrase be not equivalent to the expression “that is” in our chapter. And so, the meaning of the apostle would be to caution those who trusted in their descent from Isaac that they were trusting in a shadow for that the truth which God intended to declare by the history of Isaac was in direct opposition to their hopes, which truth was that God rejected the carnal mind and chose the spiritual mind which waited for the promise through and beyond death. By extending this allegorical character to the cases of Esau and Jacob, Pharaoh and Israel—consecutive pairs representing the same things—the whole chapter became quite clear, being nothing else than a continued declaration of God’s rejection of the flesh, declaration of God’s rejection of the flesh, and election of the spirit in the form of an inspired interpretation and application to the Jews of the typical instruction contained in the early history of their race, which they had hitherto explained according to the letter and not according to the spirit and had thus perverted to a sense directly opposed to the true one. We have only to interpose the key, “that is, the flesh and the spirit,” as we proceed through the allegory and the difficulties vanish. Thus, “the elder shall serve the younger;” that is, the flesh which is the first Adam shall be subjected to the quickening spirit who is the second Adam—“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” that is, the spiritual mind have I loved but the carnal mind have I hated—“He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth,” that is, He hath mercy on the spirit, and He hardeneth the flesh according as it is written, “My mercy will I keep for Him (the quickening Spirit) for ever, and his seed will I make to endure for ever” (Ps 89:28, 29) “But flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:51), which is the meaning set forth under the figure of Pharaoh the king of Egypt or the flesh being hardened.
Romans 9 Opposed to Unconditional Election
I thus perceived that the chapter, instead of being an argument in favor of the common view of election, was in fact an argument expressly written for the purpose of disclaiming and condemning on God’s part all idea of personal or unconditional election. This discovery gave me a general suspicion of the soundness of the interpretation of all passages adduced in support of the received doctrine and encouraged me to expect to find a very different meaning really contained in them. I shall come back upon this chapter again and explain more fully what I believe to be its meaning and the grounds of my belief, but in the meantime, I hope that my reader has seen enough in what I have set before him of its structure and object to diminish his jealousy of my views about it and to persuade him that I have not formed my judgment of the matter lightly, and that therefore, he will allow me to leave it for a little while that we may together proceed to the consideration of some other passages which may assist us in the general apprehension of the subject and so may enable us to return to this particular chapter with understandings more exercised on the principles contained in it.
Jeremiah 18 Illustrated by 2 Timothy 2
I found much in this passage of Jeremiah to convince me not only that it was the true key to the passage referring to the potter in Romans 9 but also that it was the true key to the doctrine of God’s election in general. But that I might have more light upon it, I had recourse to other passages where the same symbol occurs and especially one in the 2nd Epistle to Timothy. I shall transcribe the passage at length that the reader may see and judge of the connection. “And if a man strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. The husbandman must first labour, before he partakes of the fruits. Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead, according to my gospel: wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil-doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. It is a faithful saying: for if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: if we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself. Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings; for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work” (2 Tim 2:5–21).
The One Predestined Way to Glory Lies Through Death
The meaning of the passage is evident; no man can arrive at the end without travelling the road; no man can obtain the crown of life except by striving according to God’s way, and that way is set forth thus— “Jesus Christ was raised from the dead according according to my gospel,” that is, He entered into His glory through death, and He is the way. No man enters into glory by any other way. If we die with Him, we shall live with Him. If we suffer with Him, we shall reign with Him. This is the foundation of the Lord which stands sure notwithstanding the vain babblings of men who would teach that there is an easier way to glory like Hymeneus and Philetus who say that because Christ is dead and risen, we may save ourselves the pain of this daily dying and may enter at once into the privilege of the resurrection state in which as no temptation will then be able to reach the inner man through the spiritual body, so there will be no need for self-denial or watchfulness against the flesh and the influence of seen things. These vain babblings, which are the suggestions of the flesh, prevent or destroy the faith of many, and it is the poison proceeding from them which by infecting the soul and eating it as doth a canker makes it and keeps it a vessel unto dishonor. But if any man will purge himself from these vain babblings and will yield himself to be a partaker of Christ’s death and sufferings, he shall be a vessel unto honor. He shall live with Him and reign with Him. Every vessel unto dishonor is thus invited and instructed to become a vessel unto honor and that by the process of purging himself from the vain babblings of the flesh, the first Adam, and following the voice of the second Adam who says, “Take up thy cross and follow me, and where I am, there shall also my servant be.”5 So that to live in the spirit of the first Adam is to be a vessel unto dishonor as the first Adam is and to live in the spirit of the second Adam is to be a vessel unto honor as the second Adam is.
The Eternal Purpose of God Is that the Way to Life Should Be Through Death
The importance of this passage in its bearing on the subject of election is more fully seen if it is read in connection with a passage from the preceding chapter, which ought to be considered as a part of the same context. I quote from the 8th verse, “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel, according to the power of God; who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began; but is now made manifest, through the appearing of Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light, through the gospel, whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles” (2 Tim. 8:11). Mark especially what is contained in the 9th and 10th verses. The apostle says, God “hath called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace.” It is evident that the purpose and grace here mean one and the same thing, even that eternal purpose which God has purposed in Christ and which is so much spoken of in the Bible and especially in the Epistle to the Ephesians 1:11; 3:11 and Romans 8:28, etc. It is a purpose for it is the mind of Him who changes not, and it is grace for it is purposed in order that sinners may be saved. It would perhaps be truer to the sense and more according to our language to read the phrase thus, “according to His own purpose, even the grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ who hath abolished death,” etc. Here then it is plainly declared that the prothesin ton aionon or the eternal purpose of God’s grace which had been hid for us in Christ before the ages was actually opened up and made manifest through the appearing of Jesus Christ. It is something which is already made manifest; it is something which could be and which was shown out in the history of Jesus Christ on this earth. It cannot therefore relate to the personal salvation of a certain number of individuals for such a purpose is not already manifested and certainly was not made manifest through the appearing of Jesus Christ, and indeed, cannot be made manifest by anything else than the manifested salvation of these individuals. It must also be something which is preached when the gospel is preached for it is “made manifest through the appearing of Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light, through the gospel,”6 that is, the purpose of God is manifested by that very history which constitutes the subject matter of the gospel, and the way of Christ’s victory over death and of His entering into the resurrection life is the revelation of God’s purpose as it is also the preaching of the gospel. Connect this with chapter 2, verse 8, “Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead, according to my gospel,” and with the whole passage following it and then let it be weighed whether or not the eternal purpose of God can be anything else than that faithful saying—that foundation of the Lord standing sure which is expounded in the second chapter according to which it is appointed that the way up out of the fall and out of death should be through a willing dying to the flesh and to the will of man and according to which the Word took flesh in order to make this way and to become this way and as the Captain of salvation to lead by it all who would consent to die with Him unto themselves that they might with Him live unto God.
This purpose was most certainly manifested through the appearing of Jesus Christ and a personal selection to salvation was not manifested. Moreover, the purpose here explained has such decided marks of identity with the eternal purpose spoken of in other parts of Scripture and especially in Ephesians 1 and in Romans 8:28 that it is scarcely possible to suppose that any other purpose than this can be referred to in these passages. Thus, let the purpose mentioned in Ephesians 1:11 be compared with the prayer appended to it in verses 19 and 21 and let Romans 8:28 be compared with verse 17th of the same chapter and the oneness of the purpose throughout will be acknowledged. And surely every Christian would be thankful to find that the true preaching of election was nothing else than the preaching of the grace of God. On the whole, I was confirmed by these considerations in the conviction not only that the passage which I have quoted at length from the second chapter is intended by the Apostle to be an exposition of a purpose of God but further that it is in truth an exposition of that great purpose in Christ which is so constantly referred to in the Bible—being indeed that which truly forms the subject of all God’s revelations to man and the ground of all man’s hope towards God.
I now saw the doctrine of election clearly for I saw that the vessel unto dishonor was the reprobate vessel and that the vessel unto honor was the elect vessel and that under these figures, the first Adam and the second Adam, the flesh and the spirit are set forth. The first Adam was created for glory, honor, and immortality as God’s vicegerent upon the earth, but by following his own will separate from and independent of God’s will, he was rejected and fell under the sentence of degradation and death and thus became a vessel unto dishonor. And the second Adam by following not his own will but the will of the Father and accepting the punishment of death as the Father’s righteous judgment on the flesh was raised from the dead to a glorious immortality as the Father’s vicegerent instead of the first Adam and thus became a vessel unto honor. This is Reprobation and the Election.
Adam the Reprobate Head, Christ the Elect Head of the whole race as is typified in Saul and David
Let us look at it in the type for a moment. Saul was reprobated or rejected from being king over Israel because he was disobedient in the matter of Amalek, and David was elected or chosen into his place because he was according to God’s own heart so that the mind of God expressed in this transaction is just a seeking after righteousness. Saul was made king that he along with the people might serve the Lord in his kingdom, but when he refused to serve Him, he became a snare to himself and to the people, and he was rejected because the Lord desired righteousness, and David who was according to this desire was chosen into his place. Saul, however, was not immediately removed out of the way. Although rejected, he was still permitted to retain his power in the kingdom. But David was there also. Thus, these two kings, the one rejected and the other elected by God, were both together in the land as if to try the people whether they would cleave to God’s reprobation or God’s election. The nation thus had two heads, and every individual in the nation might choose to which of these heads he would give his heart and adherence. And according to their choice, so was it unto them. Those who followed the reprobate head partook in his reprobation, and those who followed the elect head partook of his election.
Every Man Called to Choose between These Two Heads and Becomes Reprobate or Elect According to His Choice
We are not, then, to think of God as looking upon two men and choosing righteousness for the one and unrighteousness for the other. The desire of God is always for righteousness. And so, the election in Christ is indeed the coming forth of God’s desire that all should be righteous as we shall see more fully afterwards.
The first Adam, who is the antitype of Saul, is rejected like him from the favor of God and from being king, but still he is not taken out of the way, he is still permitted to retain his power: the flesh still reigns. The Second Adam, who is the true David, is elected into his place and honored with the favor of God and with the kingly office, but His power is not yet manifested. He is still, like David, seeking where to lay his head. Both these kings are in the world under the character of the flesh and the spirit—the one, the reprobate head, the other, the elect head, and they are so in the world that every individual may join himself to and identify himself with the one or the other according to his own choice. And those who follow the flesh partake in its reprobation, and those who follow the spirit partake of its election. The sentence of dishonor and death passed on the first Adam is the decree of reprobation by which flesh with the blood thereof, which is the life thereof, is forever excluded from the favor and kingdom of God as it is written, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Cor 15:50). And whoever would escape from the reprobation must escape from that on which the reprobation lies, even flesh with the life thereof. And the promise of an eternal kingdom to the Messiah is the decree of election, “I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son; and I will not take away my mercy from him, as I took it from him that was before thee, but I will settle him in my house and in my kingdom for ever, and his throne shall be established for evermore” (1 Chron 17:13). And whoever would partake in the election must abide in Him on whom the election lies according to that word, “There is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (Rom 8:1). And all the benedictions in the Bible are addressed to Christ’s Spirit and to the partakers in it. For example, “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” “Blessed are they that mourn,” etc. And these benedictions are nothing else than declarations of that decree of election which limits the favor of God to the righteous spirit of the Righteous Head. The election is on the righteous One and as a man becomes righteous through Christ the righteous head dwelling in him by faith, so also does he become elect.
It surely is a strong argument in favor of this view of the subject that according to it the doctrine of election so harmonizes with the preaching of the gospel with its benedictions and its exhortations and its threatenings.
Reprobation Is Blame of Evil, Election Is Approval of Good
The decree of reprobation is not a decree which shuts in a man to sin and to punishment—it is a decree which pronounces a sentence of punishment against sin for thus it spoke to Adam, “Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree,” etc. And the decree of election does not shut in a man to holiness and blessedness but pronounces a blessing on holiness for thus it spoke to Christ, “Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness, therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows” (Psalm 45:7). The importance of this observation lies in this that as Adam and Christ are the heads of the reprobation and the election, so they are also specimens of the way in which every individual falls under one or other of these sentences. They who follow the reprobate head, they are re probate; they who follow the elect Head, they are elect.
God’s Account of the Difference Amongst Men
But someone will say, this is true but we must go further back to see what is the cause of this difference amongst men. What makes one man follow the reprobate head and another follow the elect head? We may seek to go further back, but God does not go further back. He has provided man with ability, and He lays the use of that ability to man’s own door. Thus, in accounting for a wicked man’s turning away from his wickedness, He merely says “Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions, he shall surely live” (Ezekial 18:29). And in like manner, in accounting for a wicked man continuing in his wickedness, He merely says, “Because I have called, and ye refused, I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded,” etc. (Prov 1:24).
The difficulty that men feel in this matter is nothing else than the difficulty which they have in believing that God really has made a responsible creature with the power of choice between flesh and spirit to whom he can truly and reasonably say, “I have set before thee, this day, life and death, blessing and cursing, therefore choose life.”
Enlarged Meaning of the Parable of the Potter
I now saw the larger meaning of the action of the Potter. That mystery indeed signified that God, the great Potter, had the right and would exercise the right of rejecting a vessel which misgave in his hands and of making a new one to fill its place. It signified that God would reject the Jews from being His visible church and would call another people to that office, but it signified more than all this—it signified that after the vessel was marred, the purpose of God was to be fulfilled, not in making an entirely new vessel, but in making up the clay of the original marred vessel into another vessel for it is not said that the potter made another vessel but that he made it—that is, the clay of the first marred vessel—into another vessel. I saw that the mysterious action of the potter symbolized the whole history of man; the first vessel representing the fallen state of man as standing in the first Adam who was marred in the hands of the Potter, and the second vessel representing the resurrection state of man as standing in the second Adam who was raised out of the ruins of the fall, the first-begotten from the dead. It seemed to me also that by the same symbol the prophet was taught that the promise of the Messiah’s kingdom contained in the 25th verse of the preceding chapter (Jer 17), namely that there should enter into the gates of the city kings and princes sitting on the throne of David was not to be accomplished in its true substance and meaning to the first vessel, that is, to man in his present state, but to the second vessel, that is, to man in the resurrection state and that the true substance and meaning of the observance of the Sabbath on the condition of which the promise was made consisted in waiting for the Lord of the resurrection who is the Lord of the Sabbath and ceasing from resting or seeking rest in present things but expecting the rest and the glory reserved for his reign and that both the outward promise and the outward commandment were only shadows of spiritual things, but that the body and substance were in the crucified and risen Messiah (Col. 2:16, 17), and it seemed to me also that by the same spectacle the prophet was prepared to see a hope and a way of deliverance for his people out from the apparently irretrievable ruin predicted in the sixth chapter, 11th verse under the sign of the breaking of a potter’s vessel, which cannot be made whole again for though the marred vessel was not to be made whole again in its original condition, yet the potter could and would make into another and more glorious vessel the clay, however marred, which yielded itself into his hands to be broken down and to be renewed.
Jeremiah 17 and 2 Timothy 2 Compared with 1 Corinthians 15
I saw further that the vessel unto honor in Timothy was the second vessel in Jeremiah and that the vessel unto dishonor was the first. I found much corroboration of this view of the subject in 1 Corinthians 15 where the first and second vessels are contrasted: “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory.” Observe that there is an identity in that which is sown and that which is raised. The same it is sown and raised. This agrees with what we have observed in Jeremiah and Timothy. God wills not the destruction of a sinner but that he should turn and live. He calls on him to purge himself from vain babblings and to give up his old nature to be broken down in order to his being made into a new vessel.
The Parable of the Potter in Reference to the Jews
Thus the parable of the potter has two meanings—the one, more outward and confined, being of special application to the visible church of God, which consisted during that dispensation of the Jewish people to whom it gave warning that God was not bound to retain them in that place of honor unconditionally but that He might and would reject them if they refused to answer His purpose and would elect another people in their room; the other more inward and enlarged being a declaration of the common history and common hope of man in the fall of Adam and the redemption of Christ. The reference to it in Romans 9 regards the first of these meanings primarily though it embraces also the second. According to the first meaning, the Jewish race was the same lump out of which God made one vessel unto honor when He constituted them His visible church and another unto dishonor when He broke down the whole frame of their polity and scattered them as outcasts among the nations after their rejection of Jesus. Their place of honor was connected with a heavy responsibility. It was indeed a high place, but the penalty attached to a failure in the duties belonging to it was as high, and we have intimations in their history that they often desired to get quit of the responsibility though at the expense of giving up their place. They said, “We will be as the nations” just as a man might wish to get quit of responsibility and eternity though at the expense of becoming a lower animal. But God did not relieve them of their responsibility because they felt it burdensome. He had given them a provision in which they might have met it, and therefore, He asserted that He had a righteous right both to lay on them the office and to require the fulfilment of its duties. He had not consulted them whether they would undertake to be His visible church, though He at different times called on them to avouch what He had done. He had, of His own counsel, put them at once into the office and the responsibility just as He had not consulted man whether he would consent to be made in the image of God but had invested him originally in the privilege and the responsibility appended to it. And when they fell, although they had not chosen their own dignity, yet God inflicted the penalty and asserted his own righteousness in doing so. “And who art thou that repliest against God? shall the thing formed say unto Him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?”
God’s Sovereignty Appears in Appointing Man’s Trials, Not in Determining His Reception of Them
Let the reader observe that the view here given of God’s sovereignty is quite different from that which is given of it in the common doctrine of election. Here, it is set forth as exercised in determining what shall be the different privileges and opportunities of different men but not in determining how they shall use them, which is the view taken in the common doctrine.
Leave a Reply