by the Rev. CHARLES G.
FINNEY
Modernized by Cliff Collins
“They
have hated me without a cause.” (John
15:25)
These
are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In my two earlier messages on total depravity, I demonstrated that all
impenitent sinners hate God supremely.
And having, as I suppose, established this doctrine beyond controversy
by an appeal to matters of fact; it now becomes a very solemn and important question,
why do sinners hate God?
If
sinners have good reasons for hating God, then they are not to blame for
it. But if their reasons aren’t good,
or if they hate Him when they should love Him; then they have acquired
tremendous guilt because of their enmity towards God.
In
speaking on this subject, I plan:
I.
To show what is not the reason of their hatred.
II.
What is the reason for their hatred?
III.
That they hate God for the same reasons that they ought to love Him.
I.
What are not reasons why they hate God?
1.
It is not because God has constituted or created them with a physical or
constitutional aversion toward God. The
text says that sinners have hated God without a cause. It isn’t that there is no reason why they
hate Him; but there is no good reason why they hate Him. Not that there is strictly no cause for
their hatred; for every effect must have some cause; but there is no just
cause. If God had created man in such a
way physically that he naturally hated his Maker, this would not only be a
cause, but a just cause for hating Him.
If, when God created us, He incorporated into the very substance of our
being a constitutional aversion of Him, this would not only be a sufficient
reason why we should hate Him, but also why all other beings should hate Him.
2.
The sinner's hatred of God is not caused by anything hereditary, or transmitted
from parents to infants. A disposition
to hate God is hatred. A disposition is
an act of the mind, and not a part of the mind itself. It is therefore absurd, to talk of a
hereditary, or a transmitted disposition to love or hate God, or to love or
hate anything else. It is impossible
that a voluntary state of mind can be hereditary or transmitted from one
generation to another.
If
any of you believes that a disposition is a tendency, or a temper; and not an
action, something that is not a voluntary state of mind; but you believe that
it is a quality or an attribute that is part of the mind itself, I say,
3.
That the sinner's hatred is not caused by any such attribute or property that
is a part of the mind, that would have a natural and necessary aversion to God.
4.
There is no just cause, in the way that God created us, for opposing God. Our nature is as it should be. Our powers are as God made them. He has made our powers in the best manner that
infinite power, goodness, and wisdom could make them. Our powers are perfectly adapted to serve our Creator. If we look at all the complex mechanisms and
the delicate organization of our body, scrutinize all the properties, powers,
and capabilities of our mind, we can find no just cause of complaint. On the other hand, we find infinite reasons
to love and adore the great Architect, and exclaim with the Psalmist, “I am fearfully
and wonderfully made”. (Psalms 139:14)
5.
There is no just cause for hating God, in that wise and benevolent arrangement,
by which we all have descended from Adam; and under which divine arrangement,
we are naturally (not necessarily) influenced; and our characters are modified
by the circumstances under which we came into being. Our being is so constituted, that we naturally influence each
other, and we are highly instrumental in modifying each other's character. This is a wise and benevolent arrangement of
the highest importance to the universe.
But, like every other good thing, it can be abused; and the more
powerful our influence is to promote virtue when we do right, the more powerful
will be our influence to promote evil when we do wrong.
6.
There is no cause for the sinner's hatred in the moral government of God. God’s commandments are not cruel. They are not impossible to obey; nor
designed to produce misery when they are obeyed. But, on the other hand, “His yoke is easy, and his burden is
light”. (Matt 11:30) His commandments are easily obeyed; and
obedience naturally results in happiness.
If God had established a government, the requirements of which were so
high that it was extremely difficult to yield obedience to His laws; if the
laws were so obscure, intricate, and difficult to understand, that honest minds
were in great danger of mistaking the real meaning of His requirements; or if
His laws were arbitrary and unnecessary; or if they were guarded by unjust and
cruel punishments: if any of these things were true, sinners would have a just
cause to hate God. But not one of these
things are true.
The
sinner cannot find any just cause for his hatred in the requirements of the
Gospel. They would have just cause to
hate God if the conditions of salvation presented in the Gospel were arbitrary
or unjust or if it was impossible to obey them. They could justify their hatred if the terms of salvation were
put so high that men had no natural power to obey them, and fulfill the
conditions on which their salvation is suspended. If God commanded them to repent when they had no power to repent;
if God required them to believe when they had no power to believe; and
threatened to send them to hell for not repenting and believing; then sinners
would have a just reason to hate God.
But none of these things are true.
The conditions of the Gospel are far from being arbitrary. They are indispensable, in their nature, to
our salvation. Instead of being put so
high that it is impossible, or even difficult to comply with the conditions of
the Gospel; they are brought down as low as they possibly can be, without making
the sinner's salvation impossible.
Repentance and faith are indispensable to equip the soul for the
enjoyment of heaven; and if God should do away with these conditions, and
consent that the sinner should remain in his sins, it would make the sinner's
damnation certain.
Not
only are the conditions of salvation necessary, but also it is easy to comply
with them. It is much easier to comply
with them than to reject them. Our
mental powers are just as well suited to accept as to reject the Gospel. The reasons to accept are infinitely greater
than the reasons to reject God’s offers of mercy. So weighty, indeed are the motives to comply with the conditions
of the Gospel, that sinners often find it difficult to resist them, and they
must work to maintain themselves in impenitence and unbelief.
There
is no just cause for hating God in the way He governs our world providentially.
There
is no reason to doubt that God so administers His providential government that
it produces the highest, most favorable and practical influence in favor of
holiness that is possible. It is clear
that God’s moral laws are guarded by the highest possible rewards and
punishments. Everything has been done,
which a perfect moral government could do, to secure universal holiness in the
world. So it is true, beyond all reasonable doubt, that His physical or
providential government is administered in the wisest possible manner.
God
administers His providential government solely for the benefit, and in support
of His moral government. It is designed
to bring out and exert the highest moral influence that such a government is capable
of exerting. Many sinners talk as if
they think God could have administered His moral and providential governments
in a manner that would be vastly more judicious, and better designed to secure
perfection in the conduct of His subjects.
They seem to think that because God is almighty, He therefore can do
anything He pleases even if it is absurd or contradictory. They think that He can secure perfection in
moral agents by exercising His physical omnipotence; and that the existence of
sin in our world is proof conclusive, that, although in some cases, He is opposed
to sin, yet on the whole, He prefers its existence to holiness in its
place. They seem to take it for granted
that Gods moral and providential governments might have been so administered,
that they would have produced universal holiness throughout the universe. But this is an unwarranted and most wicked
assumption. This is not a proper
assumption from the omnipotence and omniscience of God; and the assumption
itself is based on an erroneous view of the nature of moral agency and of moral
government.
There
is no reason to hate anything that belongs to God’s character. There is nothing hateful or repelling to any
just mind in any view that can be taken of the character of Jehovah. But on the contrary, His character
comprehends every conceivable, or possible excellence.
There
is no just cause to hate God’s conduct.
There is no inconsistency between what He does and what He says. Some
people seem to picture God as a sly, artful, hypocritical being, who says one
thing, and means another. They picture
a God Who professes to hate sin, yet so conducts Himself and the affairs of His
kingdom, as to necessarily and purposefully produce it. They picture a God Who commands men to keep
His law, on pain of eternal death, and yet in reality, prefers that they should
break the law. They see a God Who
commands all men to repent and believe the Gospel, yet has made atonement only
for the elect. Their God requires them
to repent, but has so made them, that He knows they are unable to repent. Their God professes to desire the salvation
of all men, and yet has suspended their salvation on impossible
conditions. Indeed, many seem to
represent what God does and what He says, to always be at odds with each other;
and as making up a complicated pattern of contradictions, absurdities, and
hypocrisies. But all such
representations, are a libel on His infinitely fair and upright conduct.
There
is nothing unkind, or unnecessarily severe, in the conduct of God towards the
inhabitants of this world. Sinners have
done a lot of complaining about His conduct.
They have often complained that He deals unjustly, and they have
sometimes asked what they had done that He should chastise them so
severely. But all such complaining only
proves their own wickedness, and can never fasten any just suspicion on the
conduct of God.
II.
Sinners hate God because they are supremely selfish; and God is, as He ought to
be, infinitely opposed to their selfish goals in life. The first thing that we discover in the
conduct of little children is the desire for self-gratification. At what age their desires become
selfishness, is impossible for us to say.
That a proper desire to satisfy an appetite for food, drink, and all our
constitutional appetites is not sinful, is obvious. These appetites have no moral character; and their proper indulgence
is not sinful. But whenever their
indulgence becomes unreasonable; whenever the indulgence of our appetites collide
with the requirements of God; whenever and wherever we indulge our
constitutional tendencies when we are under an obligation to abstain from an
indulgence, we sin. Because in all
these situations, we are selfish; we make our own indulgence the rule of our
duty, instead of making the requirement of God our rule of duty. We consent to indulge ourselves, at the
expense of the public, and in a way that is inconsistent with the glory of God
and the highest good of His universe.
This is the essence and the history of all sin. Now, no matter how old we were when we first
preferred self-gratification to our duty to God, when we first made
self-gratification the supreme object of our choice; at what particular moment
self-gratification came to be the ruling principle of our conduct and the
highest goal of our lives, it is perhaps impossible for us to determine.
But
whenever that happened, it marked the beginning of our depravity. It was our first moral act. It constituted the beginning of our moral
character. Before this, nothing that we
had done had any moral character at all.
The Bible assures us, that this occurs so early in our history, that it
may be said, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as
they are born, speaking lies.” (Psalm
58:3) This language cannot be
understood literally, because we do not speak at all as soon as we are born:
but the wicked speak lies, as soon as they do speak. Behold says the Psalmist, “Behold, I was brought forth in
iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.”
This language is also figurative; for it can’t be possible that the
substance of a conceived fetus should be sin!
This would contradict God's own definition of sin. God says, “sin is a transgression of the
law”; but the law prescribes a rule of action, and not a mode of
existence. If the substance of a
conceived fetus is sin: if the child itself, before he is born, is a sin, than
God has committed it. The only thing
that scriptures like this one can possibly mean, without making nonsense of the
word of God, without making different passages contradict each other, is that
we were always sinners from the beginning of our moral existence or our moral
birth; that is, from the earliest moment of our moral agency. And to insist on the literal understanding
of passages like these, dangerously perverts the Bible. Adopt the principle of interpretation that
insists that these passages should be interpreted literally, and apply it in
the exposition of the whole Bible, and you can not only prove, that sin and
holiness are substances, but also that God is a material being. Indeed, here has been the great error on the
subject of depravity. The great rule of
interpretation, that all language is to be understood according to the nature
of the subject to which it is applied, has been overlooked, and the same
meaning has often been attached to the same word, whether it applies to matter
or to mind. For instance, to throw away
God's definition of sin, which says that sin consists entirely in the
transgression of law, and to apply those figurative expressions while totally
ignoring God’ own definition, turns sin into something that is completely
different than a voluntary transgression.
It forces the Scripture to contradict itself by overlooking one of the
most important rules of Biblical interpretation.
It
is tampering with the word of God. It
is tempting the Holy Ghost. It is a
stupid, not to mention that it is a willful perversion of the truth of
God. Now, the main reason why sinners
are opposed to God is not that there is any defect in their nature that makes
their opposition physically necessary, but because God is irreconcilably
opposed to their selfishness. He is
infinitely opposed to the supreme end of their pursuit, that is, to their
obtaining happiness in a way that is inconsistent with His glory and the
happiness of other beings.
Their
supreme end, their goal in life, is to promote their own happiness in a way
that is inconsistent with the public good.
To this God is infinitely opposed.
Since they have an unholy end in view, the means that they use to
accomplish their end is, of course, as wicked as their end. God therefore is just as opposed to their
means, which they use for the end that they are trying to accomplish. These means make up the history of their
lives. They are all designed, directly
or indirectly, to accomplish the all-absorbing goal that the sinner aims at,
the promotion of his own happiness. God
is therefore, as He should be, sincerely, conscientiously, and infinitely opposed
to everything they do or say, while they are in an unrepentant state. They would make everything subordinate to
their own private interests. God insists
that they seek their happiness in a way that is consistent with, and calculated
to promote, the happiness of everybody.
This is, after all, the only way in which they can truly be happy. He accordingly sets Himself with full
purpose of heart, to defeat every attempt that they make to obtain happiness in
their own way. He is the irreconcilable
adversary of all their selfish schemes.
He embitters every cup of selfish joy, “turns their” selfish “council
headlong; and brings down their violent dealing on their own heads”. (Job 5:13, Psalms 7:16)
Thus,
you see that sinners hate God because He is so holy. As long as they remain selfish, and He is infinitely benevolent,
their characters, their designs, their desires, and all their ways are
diametrically opposed to His, and His to theirs. They are direct opposites; and until they change, it will always
be true as He has said, “I loathe them, and they abhor me”. (Psalm 139:21)
Holiness
is a regard to right. God requires,
under infinite penalties, that every moral being in the universe should do,
feel, and say that which is perfectly right.
Anything less than this, He cannot require without injustice. But sinners are not willing to do right. They want to be free to consult their own private
interests in everything, and they consider God as an enemy because He insists
on their unqualified obedience to the law of right, no matter how perfectly it
counteracts their selfish schemes.
Sinners
hate God because He is so good. God is
good and does good and promotes the public interest in a way that often
overturns and scatters to the winds all their selfish projects and Babel-towers
on which they are attempting to climb to heaven. God’s heart is so set on doing good, that in the execution of His
great plan, He has often overthrown families and nations that stood in His
way. Once, He overwhelmed a world of
sinners in a flood to prevent their mischief, and brought the world back into
such a state, that, through the introduction of the law and Gospel, He might
reclaim mankind and save a multitude from hell.
Sinners
hate God because He is impartial. They
view their own interest as of supreme importance, and pour their hearts into
making everything in the universe bend to it.
They would have the weather, the winds, and the whole material and moral
universe conform to the great object they have in view, to consummate and
perpetuate their own happiness. But
since God has an end in view that is completely different from theirs; since
His purpose is to promote the general happiness and the happiness of
individuals only as far as it is consistent with the happiness and rights of
other beings, He continually thwarts them in their favorite projects. The very
elements of the material universe are so arranged and governed that it often
makes shipwreck of their fondest hopes and annihilates forever their most
fondly cherished expectations.
But
this is not all. Sinners hate God
because He threatens to punish them for their sins. He will not compromise with them; He insists on their obedience
or their damnation. He requests their
repentance and reformation, or the everlasting destruction of their souls. Now, either alternative is supremely hateful
to an impenitent sinner. He is
completely unwilling to repent. He is
unwilling to heartily confess that God is right, and he is wrong. He refuses to take God's side against
himself and to give up the pursuit of his own happiness as his supreme purpose
in life. He doesn’t want to dedicate
himself with all he is and has to the service of God and the promotion of the
public interest. In spite of the fact
that God insists on it, he will not compromise, but because God demands
unqualified and unconditional submission to His will, or the eternal damnation
of the sinner’s soul; the sinner is completely un-reconciled to either. He considers God as his infinite and almighty
adversary, and makes war on God with all his heart.
III.
Sinners hate God for the same reasons why they should love Him. They are the same reasons why all holy
beings love Him. His opposition to all
sin, and to all injurious conduct of every kind; His high regard for individual
and general happiness; and in short, all those reasons for which selfish beings
are so much opposed to Him, are the foundation of their obligation to love
Him. But these are the same reasons why
reasonable beings that have any regard to the moral fitness of things, feel it
is right and infinitely obligatory in them, to love their Maker. He deserves to be loved for these reasons. And it is for these, and no other reasons
that sinners hate Him. They do not hate
Him because He deserves their hatred, but because He deserves their love. It is not because He is wicked, but because
He is good. It is not because they have
any good reason to hate Him, but because they have every possible reason to
love Him. I mean exactly what I
say. Sinners not only hate God, in
spite of infinitely strong reasons for loving Him; but for these very
reasons. Not only is it true that these
reasons for loving Him do not prevent their hating Him, but they are the very
reasons why they hate Him.
I
will conclude this discussion with several remarks.
1.
From this subject you can see the ridiculous hypocrisy of infidels. It is very common for them to claim that
they are partial in their investigations and inquiries. They insist that Christians are already
committed, and are therefore incapable of giving Christianity a candid and
unbiased examination. They say that you
cannot rely on a Christian’s judgment because they are already committed in
favor of Christianity. But infidels
think that they are in circumstances to make up an unbiased and enlightened
judgment; and to examine and decide without prejudice. But this is completely absurd. They are not on neutral ground, as they
think they are. They are committed
against the Bible. That they are the
enemies of God is demonstrated by their conduct. Their lives are such that no good being can approve of their
behavior, such as God. That God, Who is
holy, must abhor their behavior is a plain matter of fact. You don’t need the Bible to prove this. Now, the Bible is a book that claims to be a
revelation from God. It demands holiness
of heart and life from them; and threatens them with eternal death for their
sins. Now, is it not absurd? Is it not ridiculous and hypocritical for
these enemies of God, committed as they are against God, and against this
revelation; to set themselves up as the only impartial judges?
True
Christians can sit down to investigate a subject without bias. They are on neutral ground. They feel no such prejudices that would
misguide their judgment. Let us say
that Christians are as much prejudiced in favor of Christianity, as infidels
say they are. Still, unless infidels
will admit that Christians are perfect, that they are wholly sinless and
entirely devoted to God; it will appear that Christians are not likely to be as
prejudiced in favor of Christianity as infidels are against it. Infidels are entirely opposed to God. All impenitent sinners, as I have shown in
the two discussions on moral depravity, are totally depraved; and until
Christians are entirely perfect, they will not be as completely biased in favor
of God, as sinners are in favor of the devil.
Until then, they will not be as
likely to misjudge in favor of the Bible as sinners will be against it.
Christians,
who are generally in favor of God, feel strongly attached to the Bible. But because they have some remaining sin
about them they are likely to feel many objections to the strictness of its
claims; they are in the best circumstances, and in the most favorable state of
mind of any beings in the world to judge impartially. They are not so wicked as to reject what they see is true, nor so
compliant that they blindly submit to everything that pretends to have a claim
on their obedience. By this I do not
mean that these Christians are better qualified to judge the truth of the
Christian religion than if they were perfect; but I do mean to repel the absurd
assertions of infidels, that the Christian's faith is nothing more than a blind
faith. There never was at anytime
enough piety in the church, to bear the restraints of pure Christianity, if the
evidence in its favor did not come on them with the power of demonstration.
2.
From this subject you can see, that the wicked CONDUCT of sinners is no proof
that their NATURE IS SINFUL. The
universal sinful conduct of men has been used to draw the inevitable conclusion
that the nature of man must be in itself sinful. It has been said that there is no other way to account for the universal
sinful conduct of men. It has been
maintained, that an effect must have the same nature as its cause; and that as
the effects or actions of our nature are universally sinful, that therefore the
nature or cause must be sinful.
But,
using this same logic, if the effect must have the same nature as its cause, if
the cause must have the same nature as the effect, then God must be a material
being, for He is the cause of the existence of all matter, and therefore He
must himself be material. Therefore the
soul of man must also be material. It
acts on his material body, and causes his body to act on other material things
around him, and since it is constantly effecting material changes on every
hand, the soul must be material. This
would, indeed, be a short hand method of doing away with the existence of all
spirits. But who will, after all, admit
to this method of argument, and adopt as a serious and grave truth, the absurd
teaching that the character of an effect, decides in all cases the character or
nature of its cause.
The
universal sinful conduct of men is easily and naturally accounted for on the
principles of our discussion. We
universally adopt from the very beginning, the principle of selfishness as our
supreme rule of action, and this, from the very laws of our mental constitution,
corrupts all our moral conduct, and gives a sinful character to every moral
action.
Then
how can children universally adopt the principle of selfishness, unless their
nature is sinful? I answer, that they
adopt this principle of self gratification or selfishness because they possess
a human nature, and are born into the peculiar circumstances that all the
children of Adam have been born into since the fall: but not because human
nature is itself sinful. The cause of
their becoming sinners is to be found in their nature being what it is, and
surrounded by the peculiar circumstances of temptation to which they are
exposed in a world of sinners.
All
the constitutional appetites and tendencies of our body and mind are innocent
all by themselves innocent; but when they are strongly excited, they become a
powerful temptation to prohibited indulgence.
To these constitutional appetites and tendencies, so many appeals of
temptation are made, that they universally lead human beings to sin. Adam was created a perfect man, certainly
not with a sinful nature, and yet, an appeal to his innocent constitutional
appetites led him into sin. Adam was an
adult without a sinful nature. After a
season of obedience and perfect holiness, Adam was led to change his mind by an
appeal to his innocent constitutional tendencies. Infants today possess the
same nature as Adam and are surrounded by circumstances of still greater temptation. Now, how can the fact that infants
universally fall into sin, prove that their nature is itself sinful? Is such a conclusion called for? Is it legitimate? What, we have a holy and adult Adam, who is led by an appeal to
his innocent constitution to adopt the principle of selfishness, and no
suspicion is, or can be entertained, that he had a sinful nature. But if little children under circumstances
of temptation aggravated by the fall are led into sin, we must believe that
their nature is sinful! This is a
remarkable philosophy; and what heightens the absurdity is, that in order to
admit the sinfulness of human nature, we must believe that sin consists in the
substance of our constitution, instead of our voluntary action. That’s impossible!
And
that which stamps the conclusion of a sinful nature with peculiar guilt is,
that in proclaiming that we have a sinful nature, we reject God's own
declaration that “sin is a transgression of law,” (I John 3:4) and adopt a
definition of sin which is perfectly absurd.
From
the view of depravity presented in these discussions, it is easy to see in what
sense sin is natural to sinners; and what has led mankind to ascribe the
manifestation of sin to their nature; as if their nature was itself sinful.
All
experience shows, that from the laws of our constitution we are influenced in
our conduct directly or indirectly by the supreme preference of our minds. In other words, when we desire something supremely,
it is natural for us to pursue the object of our desire. We may also have desires for an object that
we do not pursue. But we cannot say
that we do not pursue the object of our supreme desire. Supreme desire is
nothing else than a supreme or controlling choice. It is our goal or purpose in life. And as certain as our will controls our actions; so certainly,
and so naturally, we will pursue that object which we supremely desire. The
fact therefore, that sinners adopt the principle of supreme selfishness, makes
it certain and natural, as long as their selfishness continues to be predominant,
that they will sin, and only sin, and this is in strict accordance with, or
rather the result of the laws of their mental constitution. As long as they maintain their supreme
selfishness, obedience is impossible.
This is the reason why “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is
not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.” (Rom 8:7) No wonder
therefore, that sinners, whose supreme preference is selfish, should find it
very natural for them to sin, and extremely difficult to do anything else than
sin. This fact of universal observation
has led mankind to attribute the sins of men to their nature; and a great deal
of fault has been found with nature itself; when the fact is, that sin is only
an abuse of the powers of nature. Men
have very extensively overlooked the fact that a deep-seated, but voluntary
preference for sin, was the foundation and fountain and cause of all other
sins. The only sense in which sin is
natural to men is that it is natural for the mind to be influenced in its
individual exercises by a supreme preference or choice of any object. It will therefore, always be natural for a
sinner to sin, until he changes the supreme preference of his mind, and prefers
the glory of God and the interests of God’s kingdom to his own separate and opposing
interests.
4.
Here you can see what a change of heart is; its nature, its importance, and the
obligation of the sinner to change it immediately. You can also see that the first act that the sinner will, or can
perform, that can be acceptable to God must be to change his heart, or the
supreme controlling preference of his mind.
5.
Perhaps some one will object and say, if infants are not born with a sinful nature,
how then can they be saved by grace?
But I ask in return, if they are born with a sinful nature, how are they
saved by grace? Does God create an
infant a sinner, and then call it grace to save him from the sinfulness of a
nature that God Himself created? This
is absurd and blasphemous. What! Represent the ever-blessed God as either
directly creating a sinful nature, or as establishing such an order of things
that a nature, which is sinful all by itself, would physically descend from
Adam, and then call that grace by which the infant is saved! (Not saved from its conduct, but from its
nature!)
But
let us look at this. Here are two
doctrines. Our first doctrine maintains
that infants have no moral character at all, until they have actually committed
a transgression. That their first moral
actions are invariably sinful, but that previous to any moral action they are
neither sinful nor holy. Since they
have no moral character they deserve neither praise nor blame; neither life nor
death at the hand of God. God might annihilate them without injustice, or He
may bestow on them eternal life as a free and unearned gift.
The
Second doctrine maintains that infants have a sinful nature that they have inherited
from Adam. The scriptures maintain that
all who are ever saved of the human family must be saved by grace; and those who
maintain the system that the nature of infants is itself sinful, believe that
on their system alone is it possible to ascribe the salvation of infants, who
die before they transgress the law, to grace.
But let us for a few moments examine these two doctrines. Grace is evidently used in different senses
in the Bible. It is sometimes
synonymous with holiness. To grow in
grace is to grow in holiness. Its most
common meaning seems to be that of unmerited favor. It is sometimes used in a wider sense, and includes the idea of
mercy or forgiveness.
Now,
when infants die before they actually transgress the law, it is impossible to
ascribe their salvation to grace, in any other sense than that of undeserved,
or unearned favor. If they have never
sinned, it is impossible that they should be saved by grace, if we include in
the definition of grace the idea of mercy or forgiveness. To claim that a child can be pardoned for
having a sinful nature is to talk ridiculous nonsense: and it is only in the
sense of undeserved favor, excluding the idea of mercy or pardon, that an
infant, dying before transgressing the law, can be said to be saved by
grace. In this sense, his salvation is
by grace. He has never earned eternal
life; he has never done anything, by which he has laid God under any obligation
to save him, and God might, without any injustice, annihilate him. But if it pleases God for the sake of
Christ, as I fully believe it does, to bestow eternal life on one whom He might
without any injustice annihilate, it is bestowing on him infinite favor. But let us look at our first doctrine for a
moment. Our doctrine denies that
infants have a sinful nature, and rejects the monstrous dogma that God has
created our nature sinful, and then pretends to save infants from a nature of
His own creation by grace, as if the infant deserved damnation for being what
God made it.
Those
that believe our doctrine insist that there is as much grace in the salvation
of infants, on their view of the subject, as on the impossible dogma of a
sinful nature. The fact is that the
very existence of the whole race of man is a matter of grace thanks to the
atonement of Jesus Christ. If it had
not been for the contemplated atonement, Adam and Eve would have been sent to
hell at once, and never would have had any children. Our race could never have existed. There never could have been any infants, or adults (Adam and Eve
excepted,) if it hadn’t been for the grace of Christ in intervening in behalf
of man by His atonement. No doubt, it was
in anticipation of this, and because of this, that Adam and Eve were spared and
the sentence of the law was not instantly executed on them.
Now
every infant owes its very existence to the grace of God in Jesus Christ, and
if it dies before it transgresses the law, it is just as indebted to Christ for
eternal life, as if it had been the greatest sinner on earth. On neither of these doctrines, does the
grace that saves infants include the idea of pardon. But on both of these doctrines, infants are saved by grace since
they owe their very existence to the atonement of Christ; and in both cases
they are delivered from circumstances under which it is certain that had they
lived long enough to form a moral character, they would have sinned, and
deserved eternal death. To think,
therefore, of objecting to the view of depravity that I have presented in these
lectures, because you think that it denies the grace of God in the salvation of
infants, is either to misconceive, or to willfully misrepresent the opinions
that I have advocated. I’d like to ask,
is there any more grace displayed in the salvation of infants under one
doctrine than under the other. Maybe
you will say that if the nature of infants are sinful, grace must change their
nature, and that there is this difference; that although in neither case does
the infant need a pardon, yet in the one case his nature needs to be changed,
and not in the other. But if his nature
needs to be changed, I deny that this is an act of grace. If God has made his nature wrong and
incapable of doing anything that is not sinful, if God is just, He is required
to change it. This is justice. It is ridiculous to call this grace. To cause a being to come into existence with
a sinful or defective nature and then call it grace to change this nature and
make it as it should have been all the time, is to trifle with serious things
and talk deceitfully about God.
6.
The hatred of sinners is cruel. It is
as God says, “rendering hatred for My love”.
(Psalms 109:5) God is love, and
this is the reason and the only reason why they hate Him. Notice, it is not because they overlook the
fact that He is infinitely benevolent.
It is not for other reasons they hate Him; but it is because of this
fact. It is literally and absolutely rendering
hatred for His love. He is opposed to
their injuring each other. He desires
their happiness and is infinitely opposed to their making themselves
miserable. He is infinitely more
opposed to their doing anything that will prove injurious to themselves, than
any earthly parent was to that course of conduct in his beloved child, which he
foresaw would ruin him. His heart
yearns with infinitely more than parental tenderness. He reasons with sinners and says, “Oh, do not do this abominable
thing that I hate!” (Jer 44:4) “How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like Zeboiim? My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is
stirred.” (Hos 11:8)
He
feels all the gushings of a father's tenderness, and all the opposition of a
father to any course that will injure His offspring. And as children will sometimes hate and revile their parents for
opposing their wayward courses to destruction, so sinners hate God more than
they hate all other beings, because He is infinitely more opposed to their destroying
their own souls.
7.
The better God is, the more sinners hate Him.
The better God is, the more He is opposed to their selfishness: and the
more He opposes their selfishness, while they remain selfish, the more they are
provoked with Him.
In
my second discussion on depravity, I showed that men hate God
supremely. The only reason is because
God’s excellence is supreme. His
goodness is unmingled goodness, and therefore their hatred is unmingled
enmity. If there were any defect in His
character, men would not hate Him so much.
If God were not perfectly, yea infinitely good, men might not be totally
depraved, I mean, they might not be totally opposed to His character; but
because His character has no blemish, therefore they sincerely, cordially, and
perfectly hate Him.
8.
The more God tries to do them good while they remain impenitent, the more they
will hate Him.
While
they cling to their selfishness, all of God’s efforts to restrain it, to hedge
them in, and to prevent the accomplishment of their selfish desires, are
futile. The more He intervenes to tear
away their idols; to wean them from the world, the more He embitters every cup
of joy with which they use to satisfy themselves, the more means He uses to
reclaim, sanctify, and save; if their selfishness remains unbroken, the more
deeply and eternally they will hate Him.
9.
This conduct in sinners is infinitely blameworthy and deserves eternal
death. It is impossible to conceive of
guilt more deep and damning than that of sinners under the Gospel. They sin under circumstances so peculiar,
that their guilt is more aggravated than that of devils. Devils have broken the law and so have you
sinners. But devils never rejected the
Gospel. They have been guilty of rebellion
and so have you. But they have never
rejected the offer of pardon and spurned the offer of eternal life through the
atoning blood of the Son of God. If you
sinners do not deserve eternal death, I cannot conceive that there is a devil
in hell that deserves it. Yet, strange
to tell, sinners often speak as if it were doubtful whether they even deserve
to be damned.
10.
It is easy to see from this subject, that saints and angels will be entirely
satisfied with the justice of God in the damnation of sinners. They will never take delight in the misery
of the damned, but in the display of justice, in the vindication of His
insulted majesty and injured honor. In
the respect that punishment will create for the law and character of God, they
will have pleasure. They will see that
the display of his justice is glorious, and will cry halleluiah, while “the
smoke of their torment shall ascend up for ever and ever.” (Rev 14:11)