They held that God elected his own people to eternal life for Christ's sake. They appeal to Eph. i., 4, "According as he hath chosen us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world." This view may evidently be construed either with the Arminian or the French theory of the decrees above stated, *. e., we were chosen in Christ for his sake, either as we were foreseen to be in him through faith, or because God, having provided through Christ salvation for all men, would, by the election of certain individuals, secure at least in their case the successful effect of Christ's death.
This view, of course, is rebutted by the same arguments which we urge against the theories above mentioned. We are said to be chosen "in him/' not for Christ's sake, but because the eter- nal covenant of grace includes all the elect under the headship of Christ. The love of God is everywhere represented as the ground of the gift of Christ, not the work of Christ the ground of the love of God. — John iii., 16 ; 1 John iv., 10.
13. What is the Arminian doctrine as to the ground of elec- tion ?
The faith and repentance of the elect themselves, as foreseen by God.
14. What, according to the Calvinistic view, is the ground of predestination ?
The eternal, sovereign, and infinitely wise, righteous, and lov- ing will of God.
15. , What arguments overthrow the Arminian and establish the Calvinistic view ?
1st. It is derogatory to the sovereignty and infinite perfections of God to regard any decree of his as conditional upon any thing without himself. — See above, Chap. IX., question 11.
180 PKEDESTINATION.
2d. On the contrary, the Scriptures always assign the good pleasure of God as the ground of election. — Eph. i., 5, 11 ; 2 Tim. i., 9 ; Eom. viii., 28. Its ground is declared to be in God and not in us, John xv., 16-19 ; Matt, xi., 26 ; James ii., 5 ; and to be of grace and not of works, Kom. xi., 4-7. This is affirmed, argued and illustrated, Kom. ix., 10-13.
3d. Faith and repentence are themselves declared to be " the gift of God/' Eph. ii, 8 ; Acts v., 31, and therefore were included in the decree, and could not have been the indeterminate condition of it. — See Chapter IX., question 7.
4th. It is expressly affirmed that the elect were chosen " to be holy," and " to be conformed to the image of his Son," and not be- cause these were foreseen ; faith and repentance, therefore, are the consequents, not the grounds of election, Kom. viii., 29 ; Eph. i., 4 ; ii., 10 ; 2 Thess. ii., 13 ; 1 Pet. i., 2.
5th. Man, antecedently to election, could not have been fore- seen as repentant and believing, because human nature can bring forth no such fruits. But God elects his people to grace, and through grace to faith and to all the fruits thereof. Therefore, " whom he did predestinate them he also called." — Kom. viii., 30 ; 2 Thess. ii., 13, 14
6th. The elect and the effectually called are the same, and the calling is based upon the election, 2 Tim. i., 9, 10 ; Rev. xvii., 14— See Chapter XXV.
7th. All the elect shall believe, John x., 16 and 27-29 ; vi., 37-39 ; xvii., 2, 9, 24, and only the elect believe, and because they are such, John x., 26 ; Acts xiii., 48 ; ii., 47.
16. What argument may be drawn from the nature of the ob- jections to Paul's doctrine, with ivhich the Apostle deals in the 9th chapter of Romans ?
Paul's doctrine is indentical with the Calvinistic view. 1st. Because he expressly teaches it. 2d. Because the objections he notices as brought against his doctrine are the same as those brought against ours. The design of the whole passage is to prove God's sovereign right to cast off the Jews as a peculiar people, and to call all men indiscriminately by the gospel.
This, he argues, 1st, that God's ancient promises embraced not the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but the spiritual
CONSISTENT WITH JUSTICE. 181
seed. 2d. That " God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his favors."
But against this doctrine of divine sovereignty two objections are introduced and answered by Paul.
1st. It is unjust for God thus of his mere good pleasure to show mercy to one and to reject another, v. 14. This precise ob- jection is made against our doctrine at the present time also. " It represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as more false, more cruel, and more unjust." — Methodist Doctrinal Tracts, pp. 170, 171. This Paul answers by two arguments. (1.) God claims the right " I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," vs. 15, 16. (2.) God in his providence exercises the right, as in the case of Pharoah, vs. 17, 18.
2d. The second objection is that this doctrine is inconsistent with the liberty and accountability of men. The same objection is made against our doctrine now also.