Text: "He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased." (Psalm 115:3)

A Welch revivalist once said that when a man comes to the Scriptures, he must accept some things he does not like and great many things he does not understand. The focus of one case of misunderstanding, and one that has brought a great deal of vexation into the church from its earliest beginnings, is the issue of predestination and the corresponding place of human responsibility.

That the Scriptures teach the absolute predestination of men is manifestly clear: yet, they also teach the absolute responsibility of man. I do not profess to be wiser than my forebears in being able to understand how this can be, but I know that both are true and that it is serious error to deny either one. The truth of these two doctrines does not lie mid-way between the two, but is rather found in the extremes of both. He is most faithful in handling the truth of God who makes a forthright proclamation of both, and not he who refuses to preach but one of them.

The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) affirmed that the Scriptures teach Jesus Christ is "very God of very God and very man of very man" and that He possesses two natures "with out confusion." God’s truth like the nature of Christ is two-sided--like a coin, it has an obverse or "head’s" side, and a reverse or "tail’s" side. In the former case, the Scriptures are written from God’s standpoint; and in the latter case, they are written from the standpoint of man’s responsibility. Some Scriptures describe the sinner as being "dead in trespasses and Sins", as "having no hope" (Eph. 2:1,12); While others command sinners to "Repent", "Believe", "Come", etc.

On the one hand, Jesus testified, "No man can come to Me except the Father which hath sent Me draw him" (Jn. 6:44); and on the other hand Jesus wept, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem.... How often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen under her wings, and ye would not." (Matt. 23:37) SO, the Psalmist declares that God "turnest man to destruction: and sayest, ‘Return ye children of men.’" (Ps. 90:3)

This is the reason that Isaiah prayed, "Oh, Lord, why hast Thou made us to err from Thy ways and hardened our hearts from Thy fear?" (Is 63:17) This is the reason Moses confessed, "The Lord hath not given (Israel) an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear." (Deut. 29:4) Yet, the Lord Jesus wept, "And ye will not come to ME that ye might have life." (Jn. 5:40)

Note again that the truth of God does not lie in the nebulous gray area somewhere between predestination and human responsibility, but is to be rather found in the extremes of these doctrines. Nevertheless, through the ages men who failed to grasp this fact have tried to solve the seeming contradiction of the two doctrines in 3 primary ways. 1.} Some have embraced the heresy of fatalism. 2.) Others have embraced the heresy of Arminianism, or religious humanism. 3) Still others have adopted the notion that God has a "permissive" or secondary will.

The notion that God has a will and a "permissive" will has gained acceptance in recent years. It teaches that God has His "d’ruthers", but that He stands as it were with His "hands in His pockets’ either not knowing how to effect His pleasure, or incapable of effecting it. It limits the Holy One of Israel because if "Plan A" goes awry, He can set "Plan B" in motion.

Some teach that the sifting of Peter (Lk. 22:31) and the destruction of Job’s children (Job 1:18,19) are examples of God’s permissive will. However, unless we allow our emotions to cloud our judgment we can see that Scripture teaches that even the lot cast into the lap is disposed according to His will. (Prov. 16:33)

People unable to accept the fact that God who is "higher than the Heavens" is beyond their comprehension invariably "lean unto their own understanding." Therefore, when Scripture says that God performs things they do not understand, they must claim either that the Devil does those things, or that it is according to God’s "permissive" will.

It has been averred that what God does in His "permissive" will that is perceived to be "evil" is done by another and not by God Himself. Such examples that are advanced are the fall of the sparrow, the evil spirit that tormented Saul, and the lying spirit sent into the mouths of Ahab’s prophets.

In the case of the first, Jesus attributes the fall of the sparrow directly to the work of the Father, saying, "One of them shall not fall without your father." (Matt. 10:29)

In the case of the evil spirit that tormented Saul, we are expressly told that it was "from God." (I Sam. 16:23) So, in the third case we are told the lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab’s false prophets was sent by God—"Go forth," He said; and Micaiah testifies, "Now therefore behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these thy prophets..." (I Kings 22:22)

Some have played fast and loose with God’s truth by suggesting that the crucifixion is an example of the "Permissive" will of God. Yet, Scripture testifies first, that Jesus was "delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God." (Acts 2:23)

In other words, the crucifixion was pre-determined. Second, it is the testimony of Isaiah that "it pleased the Lord to bruise him." (Isaiah 53:10) The Crucifixion was not "Plan B" or the secondary will of God; it was the determined will of the counsel of the Godhead. Yet, God holds the crucifiers guilty and responsible saying, "Yet you by wicked hands have crucified and slain." (Acts 2:36)

In the matter of salvation, it has been proposed that although God elects some men to salvation He simply passes by others. In all honesty is not God’s passivity active? Is it not His deliberate and conscious decision?

Someone may object. "What about the testimony of Ezekiel that God ‘has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.’ (Ez. 33:11) And again God asks, ‘Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord: and not that he should return from his ways and live?’ (Ez. 18:23) And again He declares ‘I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn from yourselves and live.’ (Ez. 18:32) Do not these verses prove that God has a permissive will?’

No, they do not. The truth expressed in such passages as these must be understood in a comparative sense and not in an absolute sense. For instance, if by war, famine, disease or by enslavement the Word of God is fulfilled, does this not bring God pleasure? And if by such means Justice is served, His honor is vindicated, and His Truth is established does this not bring God pleasure? And, how much pleasure must it bring Him if by these means the wicked are reclaimed and brought to repentance!

The Lord does take delight in the exercise of judgment and righteousness, for Jeremiah testifies "(Thus saith the Lord), ‘...Let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment and righteousness in the earth: for in these things I delight’ saith the Lord.’ (Jer. 9:24}

Although God laughs at the calamity of the wicked (Prov. 1:24-33) yet He takes no pleasure in afflicting them: He takes pleasure in their repentance and reformation. The sword, famine, disease and enslavement are the works of the Lord as the prophet Amos testifies (see: Amos chapter 4), but this is His "strange work" as Gill calls it, because He is a God who delights in showing mercy.

When Moses declares that God did not give Israel "eyes to see or ears to hear", it is heterodoxy to teach this was by God’s "permissive" will. God willed not to do it. Now would it not be more accurate, and therefore far more prudent and safe to allow the Scriptures to stand?

"But," someone may ask, "are there no Scriptures that clearly teach that God has a permissive will?"

No. there is no Scripture to support that teaching.

It is not a very pleasant thing for a man honestly to find his reputation taken from him; and yet, beloved, this has been the lot of all true men in every age. The world never does permit a man to rebuke her follies without replying with a volley. If she cannot stop the man’s mouth, she blackens the man’s character.

If you will turn to the lives of any of the saints of God, you will discover that they were the victims of slanders of the grossest kind. This very day it is asserted by the Romanists that Martin Luther was a drunkard. In his own day he was called a German beast, which for lust must marry Catherine.

If you turn to the life of Whitefield --our great and mighty Whitefield --in more modern times, what has his character? Why he was adduced of every crime that even Sodom knew: and perjury stood and swore that all was true.

As for Wesley... I have heard on one occasion he said that he had been charged with every crime in the calendar, except drunkenness; and when a woman stood up in a creed and accused him of that, he then said, "Blessed be God, I have now had all manner of evil spoken against me falsely for Christ’s namesake."

-Charles Haddon Spurgeon

(from "Calvary Clippings", published by Calvary Baptist Church, Lima, Ohio --Frank Hamblen, Pastor)

"May God forever bless you and yours. Through you, His Word is made clear." --Rev. and Mrs. Edward Coy, 1st Baptist Millen, Ga.

"Thanks for your good work! We enjoy ‘The Angelus’ and its very sound teaching. Your ministry is a blessing." --Missy Helwig, Martinez, Ga.

"{Your Brilliant Stars) I enjoyed that as much as anything you have written. It was personal, and preaching by example rather than by your exhortations. Your very impressive people.... Trying to shine like your four stars." --Pastor Geoffrey Thomas, Aberystwyth, Wales

(Continuing Revelation) ...It is definitely the best you ever wrote. ...Please mail to me 10 copies.... " --Bro. Dee Schubert, Phoenix, AZ

(THE GREAT REVIVAL) For a number of years we have been receiving ‘The Angelus.’ ...I read every word and appreciate your articles very much. It seems a shame that we have not told you before now how much we have appreciated (it).

When the article arrived with the main article, ‘The Great Revival’, my heart rejoiced. It represents a great deal of research to document ‘The Reformation.’ I want to thank you for it. On my copy, each principal name has been highlighted and the paper has been placed in my Bible. I have read the article several tines to become better acquainted with our Biblical position of ‘The just shall live by faith.’ Glory! ..." --Robert Ford Porter, Indianapolis, In.

"We certainly appreciate receiving ‘The Angelus’ and make good use of it. I need some extra copies of the recent issue in which you gave a series of dangers posed by the charismatic movement. Could you have your office send us about 6 copies? I have also been interested in your coverage of banking and economic history, I think you are doing an excellent job in this newsletter...." --Dr. N. Burnett Magruder, Louisville, KY

When Davy Crockett served in Congress as a representative of the state of Tennessee a bill came to the House floor which proposed using public money to pay $10,000 in benefits to the widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed like a worthy cause, a nice thing to do, but as the Speaker of the House was about to call for a vote, Davy rose from his seat end asked to speak.

"Mr. Speaker," he began, "I have much respect for the dead, and sympathy for the suffering of the living, but we most not permit our respect for the dead and our sympathy for the living to lead us into an act of injustice. Every member upon this floor knows that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please to charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of public money. We cannot without the grossest corruption appropriate this money. I cannot vote for this bill. I am the poorest man on this floor, but I will give one week’s pay to the object and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

When the vote was taken, the bill was defeated. And, needless to say, the Congressmen chose to keep their own money.

(Submitted by Mrs. June Griffin, Cumberland Missionary Society, Evansville, Tennessee 37332)