The Sovereignty of God and
the Free Grace of God E. G.
Cook Sometime ago, I
read an editorial titled The Sovereignty
of God and His Free Grace. It reminded me so much of my beliefs on
this
subject in times past. I do not recall any time in my life when I
denied God’s
sovereignty and election. I would always say, sure - I believe in God’s
sovereignty and in election. But for many years I would always end up
with man
being the boss and doing the electing just as in this editorial. In the first part
of this editorial it says the doctrine of divine
sovereignty is taught in the Scriptures. He quotes Psalms
103:9 to substantiate the statement, and then, just as I did
for so long, it goes to great length to prove that this verse does not
really
mean what it says. I am sure the writer had no desire nor any intention
whatever to prove any Scripture untrue. But, until the Holy Spirit of
God opens
the eyes of a saint as to this precious doctrine he, like the writer of
the
editorial, and I did for so long, can only end up with man running the
show. I
call this doctrine precious because it is so precious to a blood-bought
saint
of God when he can really and truly see that “all
the inhabitants of the earth are
reputed as nothing: and he (God) doeth according to his will in
the army
of heaven, and among the inhabitants
of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest
thou”
(Daniel 4:35)? It is so comforting
to know that our destiny is in the mighty hands of a sovereign God from
the
eternity of the past throughout the eternity of the future. I make no
profession of being smart. I know full well that what I do not know
about the
precious Bible would fill a library full of books. But I should like to
express
some of the precious truths God has so graciously revealed unto me. The editorial
tells us that Jesus was rejected by people for whom He
offered salvation. It gives us John 1:11-12
to back up its statement, but if you
notice it stopped with verse 12. I
once had to do the same thing because verse 13 just
would not fit in with my theology. If you look closely you
will see verse 13 puts our salvation
wholly, completely, and altogether in the hands of God, and leaves out
the will
of the flesh and the will of man altogether. No wonder the writer had
to stop
with verse 12. Maybe it is because
of my lack of Bible knowledge, but I do not see our Lord offering
salvation to
anyone here in verse 11. Our
Authorized Version says, “He came unto his own, and his own
received him
not,” but I believe that if you study this verse closely in the
original
you will see that He came to His own home, and His own people received
Him not,
or did not welcome Him. We see here the fulfillment of Psalms
69:8 where He says, “I
am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s
children.”
He came back to the home in which He had been reared, but His own half
brothers, James, Joses, Simon and Jude refused to welcome Him. “For neither did his brethren
(brothers in the original) believe in him”
(John 7:5). The editorial goes
on to ask “were the ‘sheep’ only
the ‘elect’? If so, why did not the sheep accept Him?” Here again may
be due to
my lack of knowledge, but I have no idea where he could have possibly
come up
with the idea that the sheep did not accept Him. It certainly did not
from John 10:27, for there the Lord of glory
says, “My sheep hear my voice, and I
know them, and they follow me.” Our Lord told those old
religious
Pharisees that the reason they did not believe on Him was that they
were not of
His sheep (John 10:26). In other
words He is telling them that if they were His sheep they would believe
on Him.
The editorial says the “Hardshells” teach the sheep only are the elect.
You
know, I find it possible to go along in perfect harmony with the
Hardshells,
and many other groups to a point. In II
Thessalonians 2:13 the “Hardshells” and I can walk hand in hand as
we read, “God hath from the beginning chosen
you to salvation.” We are in perfect harmony to that point,
but
there they must stop or else wreck their whole theology. Read and
believe the
rest of the verse which says, “Through
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” The
holiness
people and I are in strict accord in saying that God demands sinless
perfection. Most certainly He will never settle for anything less than
sinless
perfection. There they stop, but I dare not stop for I know that I am
not, and
that I never will be sinless in this life. Therefore, I must flee to
Him who is
sinless, even to Jesus Christ the righteous. The editorial goes next to Acts
7:51 to show us that people do
resist the Holy Spirit. To be sure, the religionists in Old Testament
times,
and the religionists to whom Stephen was talking had resisted, and were
still
resisting the Holy Spirit. And the religionists are still resisting the
Holy
Spirit today. In His parable beginning with Matthew 21:30
our Lord shows these people how they did the
resisting before His day, and how they were to do it in His day. They
had
beaten, stoned and killed the prophets. Now they were planning to kill
the Heir
and this they did on Calvary’s cross. They were resisting in the same
sense we
would resist an invading army. Should Russia send an army against us we
would
resist it because we do not like their way of life. That is exactly the
reason
these religionists resist the Holy Spirit. They do not like the “way of
life”
the Holy Spirit sets forth. In all fairness to the Scriptures, dear
reader, do
you see anything connected with Acts 7:51
that would in any way indicate that the Holy Spirit was making any
personal
appeal to those old Pharisees. Is that why they are resisting Him? We have a clear
cut illustration of all this in the case of Saul of
Tarsus. As he walked along that road on that memorable day, he hated
the very
ground our Lord had walked upon. He hated the very ground His saints
were
walking on. His burning desire, his great ambition was to utterly
destroy our
Lord’s people from off the face of the earth. He was resisting the Holy
Spirit
to the extent of his ability. Not only had he been one of those who
heard the
gospel at the mouth of Stephen, he was just as guilty of Stephen’s
death as if
he had actually cast the stones. In Acts
9:1 we see him “breathing out
threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord.” This
word “breathing” is from
the Greek word EMPNEO which
literally means “breathing on.” It seems that his hatred for the Lord’s
people
was so intense that he was literally breathing this hatred in and out
of his
nostrils rather than the air around him. But please note what took
place when
it became a personal matter with him. Let me say here that true
Christianity is
not a religion as is Shintoism, Catholicism, Protestantism and the rest
of the
isms. It is a revelation of Jesus Christ. So when Christ was revealed
to this
Christ-hating and saint-hating Saul of Tarsus we hear him as he says in
his
great amazement “Who art thou, Lord”
(Acts 9:5)? But when it was revealed
to him who Christ was he forgot his great hatred for our Lord and for
His
people and said, “Lord, what wilt
thou have me to do” (Acts 9:6)?
Who would dare say that Saul of Tarsus was seeking salvation? Who would
dare doubt
that it is God who chose the person and the time in this case? He was
not saved
against his will, but he sure had to be given the will, or the desire
for it (Philippians 2:13). It is amazing to
see what we come up with when we
start reading between the lines in the Scriptures. The writer of this
editorial
came up with the idea that those who “draw
back” in Hebrews 10:39
are under the convicting power of the Spirit. Just what lines he read
between I
am unable to see. Did John not see these same people in I
John 2:19? He does not say they are struggling with the Holy
Spirit. He says, “They went out from
us, but they were not of us.” The devil’s crowd will always
slip in
among the saints, but when the going gets rough they “draw back,” or “go out from us.” I can see
absolutely nothing to even intimate any
conviction of the Holy Spirit on the part of those who “draw
back.” Then when this
editorial comes to Matthew 11:20,
you get the idea it really enjoys reading between the lines. It seems
that
sometimes we make repentance synonymous with salvation. Repentance is
not
salvation by any stretch of the imagination. The word “repentance”
comes from METANOEO
which means “to change the mind.” A man may start out drinking, fully
believing
that it is nobody’s business but his. After a time he may sober up
enough to
notice that his wife and children are ragged, hungry and friendless. As
a
result, he may change his mind about it being no one else’s business.
When he
changes his mind about the matter, he has really repented, but his
changing his
mind about his drinking does not save him by any means. I have a hard
time
seeing any personal salvation involved in the salvation of the city of
Nineveh
at the preaching of Jonah. Jonah told those people that in forty days
the city
would be destroyed. The king told his people to turn from their evil
ways. They
did, and the city was spared. But our new birth is not brought about by
our
turning from our evil ways. The editorial then
asks, “If God has beforehand determined who shall be
saved and when, why would a preacher ask his congregation to “make a
decision
for Christ?” The only reason I can see for a preacher to ask for such a
decision under any condition is that he may add more and more names to
the
church roll. Decisions are the product of the human mind. No working of
the
Holy Spirit is essential to these decisions which are filling Baptist
churches
to overflowing with unsaved members. When a church has begged for
decisions for
a time she finds that she must bring the things of the world into the
church in
order to keep her unsaved members happy and their pocketbooks open. The
result
is that the Lord of glory is crowded out of His own church by these
unsaved
church members and their worldly interests such as banquets, social,
athletic
programs, substitutes for Bible teaching such as literature, etc. We
hear our
Lord as He says, “Behold I stand at
the door and knock” (Revelation
3:20). You can have all your decisions with all their results for “With the heart man believeth unto
righteousness” (Romans
10:10), and that only after sanctification of the Spirit has taken
place (II Thessalonians 2:13). When we come to II
Corinthians 5:14-15 in this
editorial we see further evidence of reading between the lines. It says
this
text affirms that Christ died for “every person.” I am ready to admit
that on
the surface his logic sounds good, but if we are to teach our fellow
saints God’s
precious Word, we must go deeper than the surface. I am, by no means,
boasting
of my ability to go deep in the Scriptures. I am just stating a hard,
cold
fact. May we go to Revelation 19:17-18
for a little word study. We need to
really study basic words in Scripture before we start giving them a
definition.
If we do not do that we find ourselves way out on a limb. I have been
there and
it is not very comfortable place to be. In verse 17 of
Revelation 19 John
sees an angel standing in the sun inviting all the fowls to the great
supper of
God. Then in verse 18 the angel
says, “That ye may eat the flesh of
kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the
flesh of
horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men,
both free and bond, both small
and great” (emph. EGC). This
great
supper takes place after the battle of Armageddon when the bodies of
this great
army of two hundred million men (Revelation
9:16) have been crushed on the mountains of Israel (Ezekiel
39:4) by the hundred pound hailstones (Revelation 16:21)
and their blood has run to the horse bridles for
176 miles (Revelation 14:20). Now
please note that the angel invites the fowls here to eat the flesh of “all men.” Then go to Ezekiel 39:12
where you see that it
will take the Jews seven months to bury what is left of the huge army
after the
fowls of the air and the beasts of the fields are through with it. It
is
self-evident that the “all men”
in Revelation 19:18 did not include
the Jews. Then in Zechariah 14:16 we
see those who were left among the nations. Many other Scriptures show
clearly
that the fowls were not to eat the flesh of every man. On the surface
we have a
contradiction which forces us to go deeper into the study of this
little word “all.” It comes from the
Greek
word PAS which has many different
shades of meaning. In some cases it does mean everyone. In others it
means
every kind, or every variety. In still other cases it means the whole
of one
object, or the whole of one group. So it is certainly grammatically
correct to
say that He died for the whole group of His chosen ones. For “He hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before
him in
love, having predestinated us into the adoption of children by Jesus
Christ to
himself, according to the good pleasure of his will” (Ephesians 1:4-5). I believe every word of
that. Now let us go back
to the editorial’s first point of
discussion where it says, “there were those who were bought by the
sovereign
Lord who denied Him and who were destroyed.” He gives us II
Peter 2:1 to back up this statement. It is really amazing
sometimes to see what a weakling we unintentionally try to make of our
precious
Lord. A Baptist church here in our city had a missionary to Mexico as
their
guest speaker, or should I say their guest slide projector operator?
When one
of the men of that church was called upon to pray, he rose to his feet
and
begged God to bless what the Lord was “trying to do” in Mexico. This
was an
insult to Him who does as He wills “in
the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth” (Daniel 4:35). We have dethroned God and
enthroned man to such an extent that many of us are left with a very
puny
weakling for a God. And He does not like it. My Lord has never tried to
use
finite creatures only. But now let us get
back to the editorial’s Scripture
reference, II Peter 2:1. Here we
read, “But there were false prophets
also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you,
who
privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that
bought them,
and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” First,
who were
the people whom the false prophets and false teachers were, and are
among?
Certainly everyone who will say they are among our Lord’s people. It is
the
saints these false teachers want to lead astray. Others are already
astray. So
let us keep that in mind as we study this Scripture. In translating
from one
language to another, sentence structure is often hard, for the
translator does
the very best he can possibly do, but the expression can still be
misleading if
we are not very careful. To illustrate, let us look at an expression on
II Corinthians 5:21, “For he
hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.”
Now if we follow
the editorial’s line of reasoning in II Peter 2:1 here
in II Corinthians 5:21 we will find
ourselves saying it is the “us” “who knew no sin.” But
since that is such an obvious error we know we must let the word “him” be the antecedent
of the phrase “who knew no sin”
for He is the only one who knew no sin. Now if we follow this same
procedure in II Peter 2:1 we will have no
difficulty in seeing that these false teachers are denying the Lord
that bought
His people. Most certainly they are denying the Lord that bought us.
They deny
His virgin birth, they deny His substitutionary suffering, His blood
atonement,
His bodily resurrection and ascension, His mediatorial work and His
bodily
return to this earth. If the Lord of glory bought these instruments of
hell,
did He not make a very poor investment? I am greatly indebted to my
former
pastor, Brother E. D. Strickland for his invaluable assistance on this
particular Scripture. The editorial goes
on to say, “The blood atonement is
sufficient for all of Adam’s fallen race” and gives 1 John
2:2 to substantiate his statement. I hope no one will get
the idea that I question the sufficiency of the blood atonement. It is
sufficient for anything and everything that He our Lord wanted it to be
sufficient for. Some of these millionaires in our country could
supplement my
social security if they chose to do so. Certainly their funds are
sufficient,
but that is not what they made their money for. For a long time I hung
my
theology on this verse along with John 3:16.
On the surface they seem to be impregnable. In fact, John.
3:16 is usually the last stronghold of those who are unable
to see God’s sovereignty and election. Let us examine I
John. 2:2 and see what it was that I jumped over for so long. We
read, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only
but also
for the sins of the whole world.”
Just what does it mean to be “the
propitiation for our sins”? The word “propitiation”
is from the Greek word HILASMOS and W. E. Vine says it
signifies a means whereby sin is
covered and remitted. Not only does this propitiation mean that our
sins are
covered, it means that our sins “are
covered,” it means they are remitted. This word “remit”
is from APHIEM
which means “to send away.” So our sins are covered and sent away.
Please note
that the same thing is done for the sins of the whole world here in
this verse
as is done for our sins. That means that the sins of this particular “whole world” are covered and
sent away. Now if the whole world here in this verse means all of
Adam’s fallen
race as this editorial claims, then old Satan and his angels will have
to make
the best of it in Hell by themselves, or else there will be people in
Hell
whose sins were covered and sent away. Maybe a little
word study on the word “world” would
throw some light
on this bewildering subject. The word comes from KOSMOS
which has a primary meaning of order, arrangement, ornament,
or adornment. So in the original Greek the word has several different
meanings.
But, that we may refrain from being dogmatic about this word meaning
all of
Adam’s race in these two references, let us get our own English
dictionary and
check on the meaning of the word. After all, is that not where we
always go for
word meaning? Even the children’s school dictionary will give you
something
like a dozen different meanings of this word. The large, two volume New
Century
Dictionary gives some nineteen different shades of meaning. It means
any
indefinitely great expanse, such as a world of water. Then it means a
particular class of mankind with common interests. It is therefore not
only
permissible but also grammatically correct to say the “elect world.” In
the
same way we can say the “non-elect world” because they are all
interested in
the things of this world, therefore they are a particular class of
mankind with
common interests. We are told that “No
prophecy, is of any private interpretation” (II
Peter 1:20). So if we study John
3:16 in the light of Ephesians 1:4, John
1:13, Psalms 5:5, Hosea 9:15
and Romans 9:11-13 we will have a real
hard time seeing other than the elect world
in it.
ow that we have
seen the many varied meanings of the
world in both the Greek and English dictionaries, let us look at its
usage in
our Bible. In Luke 2:1, “There went
out a decree from Caesar
Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” Could this
world
include the American Indians, the Japanese and the Chinese? Certainly
not. In
the first place he did not know all these people existed, and if he had
known
it, he had no authority to tax them. So it could only mean the Roman
Empire. In John 4:42, “This is
indeed the
Christ, the Saviour of the world.”
While the word world can be correctly spelled only one way, it has many
meanings. And while the word saviour has two correct spellings, it has
only one
meaning. It means “one who saves,” and that is it. Now when this verse
says “The Saviour of the world,”
does it mean that He is the One who saves all the millions who were
already in
Hell at the time and all the millions who are still going there? In John 17:9, “I pray not for the world,
but for them which thou hast given me.” Certainly
the world here does not include those whom
the Father had
given Him. II Peter 2:5 we see “the
world of the ungodly”
which certainly did not include Noah and his family. And then I John 5:19, “We know that we are of
God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.”
Please note, this “whole world”
did not include the “we.”
Many others could be given, but these should prove to any open mind
that the
word “world” has many different
meanings. In the light of all this, how could you expect a court of
justice to
agree with you that the world in John 3:16
and I John 2:2 means all of Adam’s
race? Are we not all guilty too many times of trying to fence God in? I
am sure
that if we had been living in the time of Jacob and Esau, we would have
been
prone to tell God that it would be wrong for Him to hate Esau. We
would, no
doubt, have told Him that He should love poor old Esau just as much as
He did
that scheming and conniving Jacob. When will we ever get around to
seeing that
God’s thoughts and ways are not ours (Isaiah
55:8)? I have come to the
point that I no longer desire to
see everybody saved. I want to hear my Lord say to that host of workers
for
salvation in Matthew 7:23, “Depart
from me, ye that work iniquity.”
I want the second beast of Revelation 13
to call down fire from Heaven and deceive those whose names are not
written in
the book of Lamb’s Book of Life. I want some of the tribulation saints
to be
beheaded because of their faithfulness to their Lord. I want to see the
beast
and the false prophet cast into Hell alive. No doubt many of you are
calling me
an old reprobate by now. If you are, I plead guilty. I am just an old
reprobate
sinner saved by the marvelous grace of God. I have just one reason for
desiring
to see all these terrible things done, and that is that God’s precious
Word
says they will be done. I want to see His Word stand forever (Isaiah 40:8). If His Word fail, your
salvation and mine would not be worth a two-cent piece with a hole in
it. If
the post-millennial Baptist could succeed in winning everyone to Christ
they
would wreck the universe. God’s Word would have to be broken for them
to
succeed, and we learn from Hebrews 1:3
that He upholds “all things by the
word of his power,” or the power of His Word. So, if His
Word could
be broken, the whole universe would go into oblivion. If, as this
editorial states, salvation is offered to everyone, what is
to hinder the beast and the false prophet from accepting it? If they
accept it,
what kind of predicament would that leave our Lord in? Revelation
19:20? For many years I got around the question by
saying God knows who will be saved and who would not. I still believe
that He
knows all that, and more. In fact, I believe it today, not only because
if His
omniscience, but because He knows that no man can come to Christ until
He draws
him to Christ (John 6:44). I once
thought He gave everybody a little yank or a gentle tug. But I have
come to see
that this word “draw” in John
6:44 literally means to drag. The
word comes from HELKO which means to
draw, drag something to a specific point, or place. It is clearly
illustrated
in John 21:11 where this word is
used. Here we see Peter as he draws the net of fish to the place he
wanted
them. Then in verse 6 we see the
same word used. In a negative sense. Here these disciples could pull
and tug at
this net but they could not draw (HELKO)
it to the place they wanted it. In verse 8
the disciples are drawing, or rather dragging the net, but not to a
definite
place. So a different word (SURO) is
used. Therefore, if we are to give the word HELKO its
correct meaning in John
6:44, we must say that the Father draws those whom He gives to
Christ where
He wants them. Quite recently I heard an evangelist in his desperation tell the lost in the congregation that God has done all He can do, now it’s up to you. If he had said I have done all I can do, now it’s up to the Lord, I am sure the Lord would have been better pleased with him. Let us all resolve that in our thinking, and in our teaching, we will put God back on His throne where He belongs. If He could save Saul of Tarsus and E. G. Cook, He can save anybody He wants to save. |