To next chapter. To Table of Contents

1. A Good Doctrine in Bad Times

Outside of the Bible, A.W. Pink's book, The Sovereignty of God, has probably had the greatest impact on my spiritual life. I will never forget the feelings I had when I put the book down after reading it for the first time about 9 years ago. My knees may not have been shaking, but my soul was trembling. It seemed as if I had never known God before. There was a mixture of joy—realizing that God was indeed God—and fear—concluding that I stood before Him as a beggar, with nothing to claim which might cause Him to save my soul.

And such is the case with anyone who finally learns, by God's grace, that God is truly sovereign. If they are saved, they go through a period of doubt, giving diligence to make their calling and election sure. If they are not saved, they are made to feel lost and undone, and any presumptuous boasting quickly vanishes. No longer can they say, "Well, I did such-and-such, so I must be saved." Now it's, "Nothing in my hand I bring; simply to thy cross I cling."

So if the doctrines of God's sovereignty fortify genuine hope, and destroy false hopes, then certainly they are necessary doctrines. The doctrine of the sovereignty of God involves such sub-doctrines as election, particular redemption, total depravity of man, and perseverence of the saints. In regards to the salvation of mankind, God's sovereignty is spelled F-R-E-E G-R-A-C-E. Election has to do with God's sovereign choice of His people as objects of love.

We have a choice, too. We can choose to believe all that the Bible has to say about God, and stand in awe and wonder. Or we can believe only those portions that seem to fit in with our preconceived notions concerning Him. Thus we can seem to make God out to be only what we imagine Him to be. This is convenient for us because, with God pigeon-holed and defined, we can be sovereign instead of God.

If God be not sovereign, then God be not God. Man becomes sovereign. Man becomes God.

Today God's sovereignty is (1) redefined, (2) apologized for, (3) skirted, (4) missing, (5) misunderstood, and (6) just plain hated.

(1) A Redefined Doctrine. A prominent Baptist preacher spoke about sovereignty on his radio broadcast some time ago. He stated, "I believe in the sovereignty of God. I wrote my college thesis on God's sovereignty." Being at the same Bible college which he attended, upon hearing this broadcast I immediately hit upon an idea: I would track down his thesis and find out what he had to say about the sovereignty of God. The college library had student theses on file so my quest became easy. Less than five minutes after entering the library I had the thesis in my hands. Being ignorant of the sovereignty issue at the time I was quite impressed that this Baptist had gone to such great lengths to write about divine election. His thesis was that God's election was based on His foreknowledge of foreseen faith in an individual. In other words God knew ahead of time that such-and-such-a-person would one day choose Christ; based on this knowledge, God elected that person to be saved.

What I didn't realize at the time was that this is the classic Arminian position: election based on foreknowledge; foreknowledge being defined as the foreseeing of an individual's faith. That seems all right at first thought but the implications are completely heretical: Then God did not set His love on persons, but on faith-in-the-abstract? Where was this "faith" supposed to come from? from the individual? Then man can save himself? Divine election is not then divine election, it is divine sanction of man's less-than-divine election. Something had been put above God; the god of Chance had been enthroned. Man, instead of singing, "Thou art worthy, for thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation . . .", can now sing, "We are worthy, for we have, by our sovereign, free wills, chosen Christ."

This honorary doctor, dubbed the Twentieth-Century Spurgeon, had better take a look at the textbook of theology used at Spurgeon's Pastor's College. A profound statement is made in it which is much worth our consideration:

The only question which touches the true matter in debate is, What is the ground of the eternal predestination of individuals to salvation? Is it the foreseen faith and repentance of the individuals themselves, or the sovereign good pleasure of God? Every Christian must take one side or the other of this question. If he takes the side which makes foreseen faith the ground, he is an Arminian no matter what else he holds. If he takes the side which makes the good pleasure of God the ground, he is a Calvinist.[A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p. 217]

According to their theory—that salvation depends upon our own will—you have first of all this difficulty to meet, that you have made the purpose of God in the great plan of salvation entirely contingent. You have an "if" put upon everything. Christ may die, but it is not certain according to that theory that he will redeem a great multitude; nay, not certain that he will redeem any, since the efficacy of the redemption, according to that plan, rests not in its own intrinsic power, but in the will of man accepting that redemption. Hence if man be, as we aver he always is, if he be a bond-slave as to his will, and will not yield to the invitation of God's grace, then in such a case the atonement of Christ would be valueless, useless, and altogether in vain, for not a soul would be saved by it; and even when souls are saved by it, according to that theory, the efficacy, I say, lies not in the blood itself, but in the will of man which gives it efficacy. Redemption is therefore made contingent; the cross shakes, the blood falls powerless on the ground, and atonement is a matter of perhaps.[Charles H. Spurgeon, "God's Will and Man's Will", Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit 1862, p. 185. This sermon is based on two texts, Romans 9:16 and Revelation 22:17, and is an excellent and unflinching presentation of the two- edged gospel sword. (emphasis mine)]

(2) An Apologized-for Doctrine. I could not believe it when, on a "Through the Bible" broadcast, the commentator happened to come to some verses which spoke of God's sovereignty in election. It was approaching Christmas at the time so he said in so many words that he was indeed sorry that he had to bring up this subject during this blessed time of year. Though he did not actually come out and say it, it was obvious that he did not like the doctrine at all, but since it was mentioned in the Bible at this point he nevertheless had the duty to comment on it. He proceeded to liken God to the pilot of an airplane. The passengers felt very safe knowing Who their pilot was. A somewhat limited analogy to be sure, since a pilot is nothing without an airplane. Again something had been put above God.

(3) A Skirted Doctrine. If it were not so tragic it would be almost humorous to note the ways which man has skirted the doctrine of God's sovereignty. A prime example would have to be a noted evangelist who remarked that the word "sovereign" did not appear in the Bible and therefore was an unbiblical idea. Neither does the word "Trinity" and I'm sure this well-meaning preacher believes in that doctrine. It is interesting that the New International Version of the Bible is literally sprinkled with the word "sovereign." "It's not election to salvation but election to service," is a common method of skirting the doctrine, especially in regard to the great sovereignty chapter of the Bible, Romans 9. But does the Bible make a distinction? Christ's "follow me" meant service and salvation; there is no dichotomy.

(4) A Missing Doctrine. God's sovereignty is strangely missing from the usual presentation of the Gospel these days. In fact, it is even missing from the missing.[Keith Green, "What's Wrong with the Gospel? The Missing Parts." Last Days Ministries, Lindale, TX.] One has to look at but a few verses from the "The Living `Bible'" to realize that God's sovereignty appears to be missing from it as well:

King James: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Living Bible: "When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and rejoiced in Paul's message; and as many as wanted eternal life, believed."

King James: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

Living Bible: "And we know that all that happens to us is working for our good if we love God and are fitting into His plans."

(5) A Misunderstood Doctrine. "What do you do with that verse?" the Baptist preacher from Cleveland asked, quoting, "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." This fellow somehow thought—like many think—that election places barriers between God and man (the very opposite is true). What do we do with the verse? We read it in its entirety: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." Yes, John 6:37 is a precious statement of God's sovereign election.

Another misunderstanding was demonstrated to me by a preacher who remarked, "I believe in the sovereignty of God. I believe He knows the end from the beginning." That is about as much sovereignty as many "allow" God to have. While they admit He knows everything that will happen, they deny Him the power to do much more than let it happen. Kind of a celestial Jeanne Dixon.

With sorrow I can relate numerous more tales of misunderstanding of this doctrine, not the least of which involves some well-meaning people who, having heard that I believed these doctrines, imagined I somehow scorned the blood of Christ.

(6) A Hated Doctrine. So hated is that doctrine that the very mention of it would electrify the atmosphere in some churches. There is something unusual about Ruth Ann Schwalbe's tape, My Life I Now Give. It has a song title, "Why Have You Chosen Me?",[Words and music by Rodger Strader. c1982 Belwin-Mills Publishing Corp.] but if you listen to the song you will not find anything to suggest this title. I asked her about it. She told me that a Baptist pastor had heard her practicing the song and said he would not allow her to sing it at his church. The opening sentence is where the song got its title:

That pastor, who apparently has not read his Bible, made Ruth Ann change the sentence for less "offensive" sentiment:

While we are on the subject of music, it would make an interesting study to examine how songs have been doctrinally altered through the years to fit differing theological positions. A pertinent example would have to be in regards to the song, "Redemption Draweth Nigh"[Words and music by Gordon Jensen. c1970 Silverline Music, Inc.]:

became

The singer expressed his rationale as this: "I don't go along with this `chosen few' business. God gave me some new lyrics as I was walking in the parking lot one day." While the new words are not objectionable, "problems are not generally found in what we affirm, but in what we deny."[Steve J. Dean, Balancing Truths.] And who can say that this is not a blatant denial of Bible truth?

To next chapter
To Table of Contents
David Heesen's homepage
David Heesen's other writings