4. The Hooting of the Hoot Owls

The new theology, asserting the narrowness of the old, is discarding the foreordination of Jehovah as a worn-out figment of the schools, discredited by the advanced culture of today. This is not the first time that the owls, mistaking the shadow of a passing eclipse for their native night, have prematurely hooted at the eagles, convinced that what is invisible to them cannot possibly exist." [Charles Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, p. 158; cited by Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Phila., Penn.: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company; 1932; p. 18.]

Chapter 3, "The Testimony of the Saints," resembled an archaeological dig in its preparation. That's because the best statements regarding God's sovereignty have not been made in the 20th century.

But to hear the "hooting of the hoot owls"—the other side—one need not go far at all. Man is escalating his shabby arguments against God's sovereignty.

That is, if and when the doctrines are mentioned at all. I received a surprise upon perusing my doctrine textbook from Bible college [William Evans, The Great Doctrines of the Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1912.] to see what it had to say about the doctrines of God's sovereignty. Not one mention is made anywhere about God's sovereignty, predestination, election, sovereign grace, etc.! Apparently this writer didn't "give a hoot" about it. The very heart had been cut out of theology and few even so much as missed it.

It is indeed a sad statement to make but there are two varieties of hoot owls which hate the doctrine of God's sovereignty, the non-Christian and the Christian. Yes, the Christians which make all the noise against a sovereign God are only aligning themselves with the non-Christians, the skeptics, and the atheists. I believe it was Arthur Pink who said that a God who was not sovereign was not a God at all. If this is true, then we who say we believe in God and yet balk at His absolute sovereignty had better do some serious thinking about how much of a God we have left if we—if it were possible—have stripped Him of His sovereignty. As was stated in chapter 1, if God is not sovereign, then man is, in his thinking at least. Mr. Toplady eloquently reiterated that point in chapter 3 by quoting Satan himself who said, "Ye shall be as gods."

It is a sad commentary on the state of the church when a Fundamentalist churchman and evangelist, S—, can only see a sovereign God as some kind of a monster.[S—, Calvin's Specs.] Joseph Lewis does no worse in his book, An Atheist Manifesto. [New York: The Freethought Press, 1954.] But he is at least consistent:

If man was "created," then someone made a grievous mistake (p. 9). [YES, MR. LEWIS, UNLESS HE'S SOVEREIGN.] . . . The love of God means wasted love (p. 32). [YES, MR. LEWIS, IF IT IS NOT ELECTING LOVE.] O prayer, thy name is failure! (p. 49) [YES, MR. LEWIS, IF IT IS NOT TO A SOVEREIGN GOD.] You are to make up your mind whether it is to be God or man (p. 57) . . .. You must make the choice, you must come to the decision (p. 58). [GOD'S CHOICES MEAN NOTHING, MR. LEWIS? AND MAN'S MEAN EVERYTHING? YOU MEAN MAN IS GREATER THAN GOD?] You are not a depraved human being. [I'M AT LEAST AS DEPRAVED AS YOU ARE, MR. LEWIS.] . . . you did the best you could and . . . the world is better for your having lived. A God could do no more. I will stand between you and the hosts of heaven. I am not afraid. I will act as your attorney before the Bar of Judgment. I will assume all responsibility. My services are free. Put the blame on me. . .. ["THERE IS ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN, THE MAN JOSEPH LEWIS?" YOUR WORDS, MR. LEWIS, ARE AN ELOQUENT CONFIRMATION OF THE WORD OF GOD. YOU BELIEVE IN A SOVEREIGN GOD, ALL RIGHT, BUT YOU ARE MISTAKEN BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE HIM.]

A subspecies of owl closely akin to Mr. Lewis is the Modernist-Liberal-Humanist variety. Rev. Charles Francis Potter was such a bird. I noticed his autobiography in the Janesville public library. What made me check it out was that, upon cursory inspection, I discovered that Mr. Potter had begun as an "orthodox Baptist" and he become a radical religious liberal, founder of the First Humanist Society, pioneer in the Euthanasia Movement, World Peace movement, and the movement to abolish capital punishment, as well as a denier of cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the infallibility of the Bible. Being a Baptist myself I was curious to find out what had gone awry with Mr. Potter. As I suspected it was related to the sovereignty of God:

When I was nine years old I wanted my mother to have a silk dress. It doesn't sound like so much now, but at that time I might just as well have wished for the moon.

. . . The minister had recently preached a sermon on Faith, based on a text which said that whatsoever you prayed for in faith believing would be granted unto you. This was God's promise in the Bible. The sermon had made a great impression on me, and now I determined to get that silk dress for my mother by prayer in faith believing. I thought it over quite a while, figuring just how to go about it. I couldn't expect just to get down on my knees and pray and then have the dress come floating down out of the sky. Of course, God could do that, for one of the Bible verses I had heard frequently was that with God all things were possible. But I finally worked out what seemed a better way.

The cellar was my private retreat, the place where I could most likely count on being alone. . .. It was in the cellar that I staged a little prayer ceremony to get Mother the silk dress. I can remember the scene yet in every detail. It was all very serious to me. . ..

There was a little table in our cellar. . .. Carefully I brushed [it] clean and set it behind the chimney where I could not be seen if anyone happened to come to the cellar door. Then I took a wooden ninepin [a bowling pin], which I had previously carefully washed, and set it up exactly in the middle of the table. Making sure no one was in the vi cinity, I knelt beside the little table right on the dirt floor of the cellar, closed my eyes, and prayed fervently to God to please change that wooden ninepin into solid gold so that I could sell it and buy my mother a silk dress. I prayed that prayer very earnestly again and again, and finally concluded very reverently, "For Jesus' sake, Amen!"

When I opened my eyes, the ninepin still looked the same in the dim light behind the chimney. I rose and took it to the cellar door for a more careful examination. As I lifted it, my heart sank, for it wasn't heavy like gold. And when the outdoor light revealed it as the same scarred wooden ninepin with faded red paint around its neck, something very serious happened to me inside. I felt sick and lost and lonely. . ..

Later in the day Mother seemed to sense that something was wrong with me. I tried to keep it all from her, but at bedtime, as usual, I had to tell her. She was wise enough not to laugh at me, or even smile, and seemed really touched about the silk dress. She told me not to mind, and that some day I would grow up and earn money enough to buy her a wonderful silk dress, and her old brown woolen dress would do nicely for a long time yet.

But I couldn't let it go at that. The dress had been important to start with, but something else was more important now. What about prayer and faith and God's promise?

She tried to explain that God didn't do things that way, but that didn't satisfy me, and when she saw I was really upset, she took me to the minister the next Sunday and asked him to have a talk with me.

. . . He was shocked that a nine-year-old boy should question God's ways and tried to put me and my mother off by saying that when the boy grew up he would understand. But, although I was trembling at my own temerity, I stood my ground, insisting that I had done just what the Bible said, and I reminded him of his sermon on the subject. Finally he said: "God's promises never fail. The trouble with you, young man, was that you didn't have faith enough. You'll have to excuse me now, however, as it is the Lord's Day and I'm busy."

On the way home I said to Mother: "So that's the window they climb out of! If you get what you pray for, God has answered your prayer. If you don't get it, they say your faith wasn't great enough. Well, my faith was just as great as it could possibly be, and I was just terribly disap pointed when that ninepin didn't turn into gold. I guess you just have to work for what you want in this world."

I could see that Mother was disappointed in the minister and rather worried about me. She chose her words carefully.

"Well, Charlie boy, you mustn't lose faith in God. There are lots of things I don't understand, I wouldn't wonder if there are a good many the minister doesn't understand, either. When you grow up to be a minister, yourself, perhaps you'll understand more. And meanwhile, what you just said about working for what you want is pretty good common sense. After all, God helps those that help themselves. But don't let anything turn you from God and religion."

But a doubt about religion had entered my mind . . .[The Preacher and I. New York: Crown, 1951; pp. 20-23.]

From this vantage point it is not easy to say what the minister should have told the boy, but one thing is sure, he should not have said that he "didn't have faith enough." When Jesus said that as little faith as a grain of mustard seed could move mountains he was certainly implying that the amount of faith was irrelevant. It would be interesting to hear the minister's side of the story. Whatever he believed, he counseled and practiced a theology in which man ultimately has power OVER God through prayer. After thinking back to my childhood I can certainly sympathize with little Charles. I feel for him. The only God He knew had failed him. But was the God that he knew sovereign? No, He was not; the remainder of the book reveals that Mr. Potter never had any inclination to believe in a sovereign God. During his ordination the doctrines of God's sovereignty were brought up; Mr. Potter simply skirted them or explained them away; the examiners compromised their position; and presto! we have a Baptist who wasn't really a Baptist, nowhere near a Baptist.

I mention this case because it demonstrates that when we lose sight of God's absolute sovereignty, the door to apostasy opens wide. It was Darwin's inability to attribute the minutest happenings of "nature" to the sovereign hand of the Creator that fostered his theory of evolution. That has given the hoot owls plenty to hoot about.

In the following passage we find Thomas Paine, a very famous figure in early American history, taking great "paines" to dispute God's sovereignty. You will notice that he has to discredit the Apostle Paul in the process.

[NOTE: Reprinted from an Appendix to Paine's Theological Works, published in London, by Mary Ann Carlile, in 1820. This I believe to be the last piece written by Paine. -- Editor.]

Remarks on Romans IX. 18-21.

Addressed to the Ministers of the Calvinistic Church.

PAUL, in speaking of God, says, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will be hardeneth. Thou wilt say, why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay, but who art thou, O man, 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 honor and another unto dishonor?"

I shall leave it to Calvinists and Universalists to wrangle about these expressions, and to oppose or corroborate them by other passages from other books of the Old or New Testament. I shall go to the root at once, and say, that the whole passage is presumption and nonsense. Presumption, because it pretends to know the private mind of God: and nonsense, because the cases it states as parallel cases have no parallel in them, and are opposite cases.

The first expression says, "Therefore hath he (God) mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." As this is ascribing to the attribute of God's power, at the expense of the attribute of his justice, I, as a believer in the justice of God, disbelieve the assertion of Paul. The Predestinarians, of which the loquacious Paul was one, appear to acknowledge but one attribute in God, that of power, which may not improperly be called the Physical attribute. The Deists, in addition to this, believe in his moral attributes, those of justice and goodness.

In the next verses, Paul gets himself into what in vulgar life is called a hobble, and he tries to get out of it by nonsense and sophistry; for having committed himself by saying that "God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth," he felt the difficulty he was in, and the objections that would be made, which he anticipates by saying, "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he (God) yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will? Nay, but, O man, who art thou, that repliest against God! "This is neither answering the question, nor explaining the case. It is down right quibbling and shuffling off the question, and the proper retort upon him would have been, "Nay, but who art thou, presumptuous Paul, that puttest thyself in God's place!" Paul, however, goes on and says, "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou, made me thus?" Yes, if the thing felt itself hurt, and could speak, it would say it. But as pots and pans have not the faculty of speech, the supposition of such things speaking is putting nonsense in the place of argument, and is too ridiculous even to admit of apology. It shows to what wretched shifts sophistry will resort.

Paul, however, dashes on, and the more he tries to reason the more he involves himself, and the more ridiculous he appears. "Hath not," says he, "the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor"? In this metaphor, and a most wretched one it is, Paul makes the potter to represent God; the lump of clay the whole human race; the vessels unto honor those souls "on whom he hath mercy because he will have mercy;" and the vessels unto dishonor, those souls "whom he hardeneth (for damnation) because be will harden them." The metaphor is false in every one of its points, and if it admits of any meaning or conclusion, it is the reverse of what Paul intended and the Calvinists understand.

In the first place a potter doth not, because he cannot, make vessels of different qualities, from the same lump of clay; he cannot make a fine china bowl, intended to ornament a side-board, from the same lump of clay that he makes a coarse pan, intended for a close-stool. The potter selects his clays for different uses, according to their different qualities, and degrees of fineness and goodness.

Paul might as well talk of making gun-flints from the same stick of wood of which the gun-stock is made, as of making china bowls from the same lump of clay of which are made common earthen pots and pans. Paul could not have hit upon a more unfortunate metaphor for his purpose, than this of the potter and the clay; for if any inference is to follow from it, it is that as the potter selects his clay for different kinds of vessels according to the different qualities and degrees of fineness and goodness in the clay, so God selects for future happiness those among mankind who excel in purity and good life, which is the reverse of predestination.

In the second place there is no comparison between the souls of men, and vessels made of clay; and, therefore, to put one to represent the other is a false position. The vessels, or the clay they are made from, are insensible of honor or dishonor. They neither suffer nor enjoy. The clay is not punished that serves the purpose of a close-stool, nor is the finer sort rendered happy that is made up into a punch-bowl. The potter violates no principle of justice in the different uses to which he puts his different clays; for he selects as an artist, not as a moral judge; and the materials he works upon know nothing, and feel nothing, of his mercy or his wrath. Mercy or wrath would make a potter appear ridiculous, when bestowed upon his clay. He might kick some of his pots to pieces.

But the case is quite different with man, either in this world or the next. He is a being sensible of misery as well as of happiness, and therefore Paul argues like an unfeeling idiot, when he compares man to clay on a potter's wheel, or to vessels made therefrom: and with respect to God, it is an offence to his attributes of justice, goodness, and wisdom, to suppose that he would treat the choicest work of creation like inanimate and insensible clay. If Paul believed that God made man after his own image, he dishonours it by making that image and a brick-bat to be alike.

The absurd and impious doctrine of predestination, a doctrine destructive of morals, would never have been thought of had it not been for some stupid passages in the Bible, which priestcraft at first, and ignorance since, have imposed upon mankind as revelation. Nonsense ought to be treated as nonsense, wherever it be found; and had this been done in the rational manner it ought to be done, instead of intimating and mincing the matter, as has been too much the case, the nonsense and false doctrine of the Bible, with all the aid that priestcraft can give, could never have stood their ground against the divine reason that God has given to man.

Doctor Franklin gives a remarkable instance of the truth of this, in an account of his life, written by himself. He was in London at the time of which he speaks. "Some volumes," says he, "against Deism, fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of Sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appeared to me more forcible than the refutation itself. In a word I soon became a perfect Deist." -- New York Edition of Franklin's Life, page 93.

All America, and more than all America, knows Franklin. His life was devoted to the good and improvement of man. Let, then, those who profess a different creed, imitate his virtues, and excel him if they can.

THOMAS PAINE.

Evangelist R— was a good example of this type. There are two reasons why we choose to mention him here: (1) he wrote a book entitled P—, which is a rather flimsy diatribe against the doctrine of God's sovereignty, and (2) he seemed to consider himself the heir-apparent to Charles Spurgeon, having been photographed standing in front of Spurgeon's portrait.

Let's deal briefly with these two in order. His book shows gross (though sadly typical) misunderstanding of these doctrines. He attacks Calvinism, confusing it with hyper-Calvinism. And he attacks Arminianism, thinking that it is merely a denial of eternal security, nothing else. His statement [page 24] that "God, in mercy, elects some men to do certain tasks, since He knows that they will obey Him in these matters", is as far as he will "allow" God's election to go. Dr. R— would certainly deny that man is the author of his own destiny, but his theology implies it.

Was R— the heir of Spurgeon? In many ways, yes! His warm evangelical spirit was Spurgeon-like. And, like Spurgeon, he knew and utilized the power of the printed word. In doctrine, however, he is a far cry from Spurgeon. He "excuses" Spurgeon's Calvinism by thinking that the Arminianism of the day forced Spurgeon to stress the Five Points. What he didn't see was that while Arminianism was a trickle in Spurgeon's day, it is a veritable deluge today. Though R— would have denied it, he was a part of that deluge, holding four of the Arminianism's five points, whether he realized it or not!

We have no particular axes to grind regarding Dr. R—. He was only being a typical Fundamentalist. We only mention him because of his book against the doctrines of grace. Considering the light he had, Dr. R— had a remarkable ministry. Since God is the sovereign Dispenser of light, He judges his people not by how much light they have, but by what they do with the light they have. I would say Dr. R— accomplished quite a bit. And I'll go a step further and say that Dr. R— obviously had light in areas that I lack.

One cannot blame Mr. R— and others for shying away from the predestination doctrines, after one sees how badly they are handled by 20th century man. I would shy away from them, too, and persuade others to do so, except for two things: (1) they are in the Bible, and therefore profitable, and (2) historically they have been handled well by godly men, and by God in bringing revival.

It is not our purpose to take these Hoot Owls to task point by point and show where they are wrong. That has been done by much mightier pens than the present one. Nowhere has any Hoot Owl ever dealt honestly with all the scriptural testimony like that presented in chapter 2. They are "wise owls" for not tackling that mass of evidence. Their usual scheme is to quickly explain them all away with some proof texts or phrases.

One of these phrases is a characteristic cry of the Hoot Owl: "HOO- SOEVER WILL". I deliberately misspelled it for purposes of demonstration. When we spell it that way we are saying that it is being abused. Many well-meaning Christians use "HOO-SOEVER WILL" to try pull a sovereign God from His throne. They interpret the whole Bible by these two words. When they read, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy," or, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him," they begin to get uneasy; they begin to get a glimpse of God's absolute sovereignty; they begin to get uncomfortable with it. Suddenly a magic phrase pops into their minds, "HOO-SOEVER WILL", and all is well again. Man has the last say after all.

But this is an abuse of the term. This fantastic truth is not for promiscuous handling. Only after we lose all hope in ourselves, after we have been made by God to feel the depth of our sin, and have been shown by the Spirit of God our utter spiritual destitution and impotence to rescue ourselves, only then can we begin to know the blessedness of "whosoever will." And what a soothing song it is to a wounded and dying soul! It breaks the barriers down, and God shows us His dying Son, and we by faith cling to His cross and "call upon the name of the Lord." Praise God, salvation is of the Lord, and He will get the credit and glory for it from first to last.

But "HOO-SOEVER WILL"—I spelled it wrong again—will only turn our eyes on ourselves and never onto God our Savior. As long as we think we can save ourselves, ironically we will never find within our free will the power to effect the cure of sin. God knows what He is doing, people. Those predestination verses are not there to tease us, but to cause us to throw ourselves by His grace upon His sovereign mercy. Glory!

Let us, as believers of the absolute sovereignty of God, begin to quiet the hooting of the hoot owls, by not only proclaiming God's sovereignty, but by zealously and warmly insisting upon and proclaiming "whosoever will" as well. Then and only then, with the Apostle Paul, we can boldly assert that we are "free from the blood of all men", because we have "shunned not to declare the whole council of God."

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