from the number of creatible, but from the mass of actually sin- ful men. — John xv., 19; Rom. xi., 5, 7.
3d. The Scriptures declare that the elect are chosen to sancti- fication, and to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. They must therefore have been regarded when chosen as guilty and defiled by sin.— 1 Pet. i., 2 ; Eph, i., 4-6.
4th. Predestination includes reprobation. This view repre- sents God as reprobating the non-elect by a sovereign act, without any respect to their sins, simply for his own glory. This appears to be inconsistent with the divine righteousness, as well as with the teaching of Scripture. The non-elect are " ordained to dis- honor and wrath for their sins, to the praise of his glorious jus- tice.— Conf. Faith, ch. 3, Sec. 3-7, L. Cat., question 13 ; S. Cat., question 20.
8. What is the trice interpretation of Eph. iii., 9, 10.
This passage is claimed as a direct affirmation of the supra- lapsarian theory. If the lva} introducing the tenth verse, refers to the immediately preceding clause, which closes the ninth verse, then the passage teaches that God created all things, in order that his manifold wisdom might be displayed by the church to the angels. It is evident, however, that Iva refers to the preceding- phrase, in which Paul declares he was ordained to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and to enlighten all men as to the mys- tery of redemption. All this he was commissioned to do, in order that God's glory might be displayed, etc. — See Hodge on Ephesians.
9. What is the sub-lapsarian view of predestination ?
The sub-lapsarian (sub lapsum) theory of predestination^ or the decree of predestination, viewed as subsequent in purpose to the decree permitting man to fall, represents man as created and fallen as the object of election. The order of the decrees then stand thus : 1st. The decree to create man. 2d. To permit man to fall. 3d. The decree to elect certain men, out of the mass of the fallen and justly condemned race, to eternal life, and to pass others by, leaving them to the just consequences of their sins*. 4th.. The decree to provide salvation for the elect.
12
I;
178 PKEDESTINATION.
10. What is the Arminian theory as to the order of the de- crees relating to the human race ?
1st. The decree to create man. 2d. Man, as a moral agent, being fallible, and bis will being essentially contingent, and bis sin therefore being impreventible, God, foreseeing that man would certainly fall into the condemnation and pollution of sin, decreed to provide a free salvation through Christ for all men, and to provide sufficient means for the effectual application of that salva- tion to the case of all. 3d. - He decreed absolutely that all be- lievers in Christ should be saved, and all unbelievers reprobated for their sins. 4th. Forseeing that certain individuals would re- pent and believe, and that certain other individuals would con- tinue impenitent to the last, God from eternity elected to eternal life those whose faith he foresaw, on the condition of their faith, and reprobated those whom he foresaw would continue impeni- tent on the condition of that impenitence.
With the Arminian the decree of redemption precedes the decree of election, which is conditioned upon the foreseen faith of the individual.
With the Calvinist, on the other hand, the decree of election precedes the decree of redemption, and the decree of election is conditioned upon the simple good pleasure of God alone. — See Appendix B.
11. What is the view of this subject entertained by the French Protestant theologians, Camero, Amyraut, and others ?
These theological professors at Saumur, during the second quarter of the seventeenth century, taught that God, 1st. Decreed to create man. 2d. To permit man to fall. 3d. To provide, in the mediation of Christ, salvation for all men. 4th. But, fore- seeing that if men were left to themselves none would repent and believe, therefore he sovereignly elected some to whom he de- creed to give the necessary graces of repentance and faith.
The new school theology of America, as far as it relates to the decrees of God, is only a revival of this system.
It differs from the Calvinistic view in making the decree of redemption precede the decree of election.
It differs from the Arminian view in regarding the sov-
LUTHEREAN VIEW. 179
ereign good pleasure of God, and not foreseen faith, the ground of election. The objection to this view is, that it is an essential ele- ment in that radically false view of the atonement called the governmental theory. — See Chapter XXII., questions 6, 7.
12. In what sense do the Lutherans teach that Christ is the ground of election ?