SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service Theologian
ENTAIL OF THE COVENANT
CHAPTER IV
THE relation which theology bears to
Scripture may be exemplified by that of art to nature. And the parallel would
be still closer if the principles and standards of the art of a bygone age were
stereotyped, and some accredited tribunal existed to denounce departure from
them. For in these strange days, while a readiness to hear anything that
disparages the authority of Scripture is deemed proof of mental independence
and enlightenment, we are in danger of being cast out of the synagogue if we
question the authority of the great teachers of the past, albeit they
themselves would have repudiated not a few of the tenets now attributed to them
by their disciples.1
1 See ex. gr. Calvin's Commentary upon John iii. 16: "
Christ employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite indiscriminately
all to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is
the import of the term world." And again, on Rom. v. 18 : " Therefore Christ
suffered for the sins of the whole world, and through God's benignity is
offered indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."
Back to
nature is our aspiration in the sphere of art, and back to the Bible should be
our watchword here. And if we study the Bible with an open mind, we shall find
perhaps that some of our difficulties will disappear, and others will prove
less perplexing than we supposed. But we must not follow the ways of certain
schools of controversy, who tamper with any statements of Scripture that seem
to clash with their special beliefs and dogmas. To question the Divine
sovereignty is to take a first step on the downward path that logically leads
to atheism. And any refusal to accept at their face value the plain words in
which the gospel of grace is proclaimed on many a page of the New Testament, is
to charge the God of truth with a kind of untruthfulness that would not be
tolerated among honourable men.
When dealing with truths in respect of
which we are dependent absolutely upon a Divine revelation, it behoves us to
adhere strictly to the very words of Scripture. And many of our difficulties
are due to violations of this important rule. For instance, the theological
doctrine of predestination to life, with its terrible alternative, is not based
on Scripture, but on inferences from Scripture. The word proorizo, on
which such a tremendous superstructure has been reared, occurs in but four
passages of the New Testament, and never once in relation to life. Indeed it is
only in Romans viii. and Ephesians i. that it is used with reference to the
destiny of men ; and in both these Scriptures it points to special positions of
blessing to which the redeemed are predestinated. The predestination of Romans
viii. 29 is to "be conformed to the image of His Son." And in keeping with this
are the words of Ephesians i. 5, "foreordained unto adoption as sons." 1 And in
verse 11 it is " to an inheritance," or (as the Revised Version gives it) " to
be His heritage."
1 This may be true of all the redeemed, or it may not. As
to this we may not dogmatise : here it is written of the elect of this
Christian dispensation.
And let us not overlook the statement that it
was those whom He foreknew that He thus predestinated. What inference shall we
draw from this ? Is our future destiny dependent upon the Divine Sovereignty,
in the sense that it is in no way influenced by the action of our human will
-that proud but perilous prerogative of human nature ? I refuse to enter on
this well-worn controversy. My purpose is to lodge a protest against drawing
any inferences whatever from truths that cannot be reached by natural
reason.1
1 The two other passages where proorizo occurs (Acts iv. 28,
and 1 Cor. ii. 7) have no bearing on the present question. The word used in
Acts xiii. 48 is tasso, to arrange, put in order or rank, especially in
a military sense. The thought of reprobation cannot be imported into it. And
mark the words that follow immediately. In Iconium " they so spake that a great
multitude believed " (xiv. 1). And ch. xvii. 11 tells us why their preaching in
Berea was more successful than in Thessalonica. What concerns the preacher of
the Gospel is to obey his Master's orders, not to follow his own apprehension
(or misapprehension) of the counsels of God.
If we are
predestinated to the adoption of children, let us take the place of children ;
and instead of becoming ensnared by the learned ignorance of the Latin Fathers,
let us accept the Divine words with childlike simplicity, content to be
ignorant when the teaching reaches depths we cannot fathom. And in this spirit
let us accept the teaching of the ninth chapter of Romans. The Apostle's words,
both about Isaac and Ishmael, and also about Jacob and Esau, clearly relate to
racial and dispensational position and blessing in this world, and not to the
eternal destiny of these men or their descendants. The eighth verse is
important as refuting the popular doctrine that men are by nature children of
God. But to infer from it that Isaac's descendants are all children of God is
flatly opposed to the Apostle's main argument: and yet this must be accepted if
we are to infer that the descendants of Ishmael are all children of
wrath.
A reference to Malachi, moreover, makes it clear that the Esau of
the thirteenth verse is the Edom family or race, rather than the individual who
died fourteen centuries before the prophecy was given. And yet the story of
Esau contains that which ought to have restrained the dogmatism of the
predestination controversy. " The purpose of God according to election " was
not that Jacob should be eternally saved, and Esau lost, but that the elder
should serve the younger.1 And how did this result come about ? The
twenty-fifth chapter of Genesis ends with the words, "Esau despised his
birthright." And as this position of influence and blessing was divinely given,
his sin in bartering it for a mess of pottage is branded as "profanity," and a
place of repentance was denied him. It was not a question of his eternal
destiny, but of the birthright he had forfeited. And it is our part to take
heed to the warning which his case is used to enforce in Hebrews. Let us then
shun the profanity of setting ourselves to discuss whether his sin was not
really due to " the purpose of God according to election"!
But what of
Pharaoh's case ? Does not this Scripture teach us that God called that evil man
into existence for the express purpose of manifesting His wrath, and making
known His Divine power in his destruction ? Such an interpretation of the
seventeenth verse is quite unwarranted. And moreover it robs us of much deeply
solemn teaching. The word here used does not mean to " call into being," but to
" rouse," or " wake up." The Hebrew of Exodus ix. 16 reads, " For this purpose
I have made thee stand." And this is rendered in the Greek Bible, " For this
purpose hast thou been preserved until now."
1 Our English word hate in Rom.
ix. 13 conveys a false impression. Note the Lord's use of the Greek word in
Luke xiv. 26.
The Divine command by the mouth of Moses he treated with
contempt. "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice? "was his impious
rejoinder. And when the spoken word was accredited by miraculous power, he
called upon his demon-possessed magicians to parody the miracles. It would have
been entirely in the spirit of that dispensation if God had struck him down in
his sin. But he was preserved - he was made to stand - as a foil for the
display of the power of God, and that the name of God "might be declared
throughout all the earth." And yet, if this be separated from the context, it
gives a faulty presentation of the character and ways of God. Mark the
twenty-second verse: "What if God, purposing to shew forth His wrath, and to
make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath
fitted for destruction ? " In view of these words we may not dare to assert
that Pharaoh might not have obtained mercy had he cast himself upon God in
repentance and confession.
What a contrast his case presents to that of
Nebuchadnezzar ! " Of a truth your God is the God of gods and the Lord of
kings"- such was the king of Babylon's confession when he first received proof
of the power and presence of Daniel's God. And when the deliverance of the
Jewish Provincial Governors from the burning fiery furnace brought him full
conviction, he made proclamation that Israel's Jehovah was the only God, and He
alone was to be worshipped throughout all his empire. Pharaoh's destiny is
certain, but who would dare to say that Nebuchadnezzar may not be reckoned
among the redeemed ! Pharaoh's case was akin to that of the Christ-rejecting
Jews in the days of the Ministry. Because they turned from the light, God
blinded their eyes; and if God hardened Pharaoh's heart, it was because he
himself had closed it against abundant proofs of the Divine presence and power.
Both cases alike exemplify a great principle that governs "the ways of God to
men." It is a principle of universal application, and it explains the failure
of many a Christian life. For if a Christian refuses new light by which God
would lead him on, he is in danger of losing even the light he already
enjoys.
Go To Chapter Five
Literature | Photos | Links | Home