The following is a reply from Elder C.C. Morris from a questioning "free will" advocate. The reply, in my opinion, is a bit harsh, yet I think there are some VERY interesing truths presented and also speaks a bit from the "Primitive Baptist" or "Old School Baptist" prospective of Calvinism.
"I have no problem seeing predestanation [sic] in scripture, but neither do I negate free will from the scripture, because I can’t. Maybe you can at the exclusion of some scripture. Please explain the following which is only a few Matt. 23:37 “ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Rev. 22:17 “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.”
John 5:40 “ And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”2 Peter 3:9 “......not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”
If God has chosen to save only a few, as your doctrine declares, then according to 2 Peter 3:9 God is going against his own will. Don’t give me presdestanation [sic] scripture to prove your case. I’m familiar with all of them.
Explain the scripture that seems to teach other wise. Then you will get my attention. Until then you won’t. And don’t misunderstand me. I’m very open to learning. But I’m very honest in comparing scripture with scripture, not just picking the ones I like. I’m neither Arm. or [sic] Cal. I see plenty of scripture on both sides. And I can see neither side with the ability to negate the other. At least if they’re honest in looking at all scripture. Thanks and feel free to write any time, A. "
We have no idea who “A” is. We know little about him other than what may be gathered from his correspondence: He has no problem seeing predestination in Scripture, which puts him far above many who trade in the religious marketplace. He does not know how to spell predestination, but this could possibly be corrected, if he were sufficiently interested. He manifestly proves that he does not know what Primitive Baptists believe. He does not want us to give him predestination Scriptures to prove our case, as he is familiar with all of them, and satisfied to tell us so. He is worried about being misunderstood, he is very open to learning, and he says he is very honest, comparing Scripture with Scripture, not just picking the ones he likes. He is “neither Arm. or Cal.,” by which we suppose he means he is “neither Arminian nor Calvinist.” Our consenting to use his terms (Arminian, Calvinist), would leave him to be either a Pelagian or an atheist, as there is practically nothing else he could be, in such general terms, in all of so-called Christendom.
We are flattered, I suppose, because the questions of such a man as “A,” so learned in the Scriptures, would be referred to us. We do not profess to be familiar with all the Scriptures on predestination as he does, because we would then have to be familiar with every verse in the Bible. All verses are Scriptures on predestination.
To get to the heart of the issue, the man’s problem seems to be that of multitudes who, with varying degrees of interest in religion, cannot figure out who is the stronger, God or man.
He brings up four Scriptures, all of which must be addressed if we are to have any hope, as he says, of getting his attention.
Matthew 23:37
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”
Here, “A” deserves much credit for his not misquoting this text as most Arminians do (not that he is an Arminian, which he has denied being. Isn’t it strange, though, how those who say they are neither Arminian nor Calvinist usually come down on the Arminian side of every issue?). Even the greatest Arminian radio and TV evangelists of our day usually say, “how often would I have gathered YOU together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Of course, Jesus did not say that, or even remotely imply it, as if He were trying to gather anyone who would not be gathered.
“A” has underlined Christ’s “would I have gathered” and “ye would not.” By his underlining, we are made to think he questions the relative strength of Jesus, who would have done something, and that of those whom He addressed, who would not. This supposed test of wills between Christ and the Pharisees, to whom the Lord is in effect speaking in Matthew 23.37, is not the real issue at all. It is neither a question of Christ’s making an attempt at gathering someone nor a question of whether man’s will has superior power over God’s. The emphasis of the text was that Christ would have gathered “thy children,” whoever these are; but the Pharisees resisted Him. To put it another way, Christ would gather those He calls “thy children,” who did not resist Him; He did not try to gather the Pharisees who did resist Him. This should be evident from the text itself to anyone who can read.
First, Christ was addressing the Pharisees in the temple at Jerusalem, who considered themselves to be the spiritual fathers of the Jews or Israelites. Hence, Jesus, only a few moments before, had told the multitude and His disciples (note this distinction Matthew makes), “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven (Matthew 23.1, 9).”
Second, Christ had already gathered these children in a spiritual way, as was manifested on the day of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. “And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. And when He was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee...And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased, and said unto Him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise (Matthew 21.9-16)?”
Time and space forbids our lingering here. Suffice it to say, if it were only a spiritual gathering of these children, it would not be complete. There must be a literal gathering of them as well. They must be gathered, and they were, on the day of Pentecost and following. For, we see
Third, Jesus Christ did, at His own appointed time, gather the children of Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and after, and He added them to the Jerusalem church. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls (Acts 2.41).” After that, as always, He gathered them exactly as He saw fit: “...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved (Acts 2.47b).” Later, it is recorded: “Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand (Acts 4.4).” In each case the Lord gathered whom He would in His own appointed time and way.
Jesus never had any problem with the wills of those whom He would gather. To illustrate the point, picture for a moment, if you will, several people: an abusive parent; his little children, helpless to do anything about the abuse they are under; and, say, a kind but determined officer who first approaches the parent to reason with him before taking the children into his protective custody. The officer is neither trying to gather the parent, nor are the children unwilling to go. Whether anyone cares for this inelegant and mediocre illustration or not, it matters not. The real point is, any person with common sense would understand exactly what this officer meant if he told the parent (which the Pharisees considered themselves to be, spiritual fathers, and as such they represented themselves to the multitudes), “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Only a stultified will-worshiper would be unable to discern what He said and what he meant.
And as Jesus was pleased to here represent Himself by the symbol of a mother hen (even as He represented Himself by the figure of a mother eagle in Deuteronomy 32.11), you will note that the chickens are HER chickens, and they did not belong to the father Pharisees.
Will-worshipers invariably try to present Christ as though He were trying here to gather the Pharisees, but that they would not let Him gather them; their wills prevailed over the will of Christ and His Father. Pelagians, Arminians, and their fellow-travelers had rather preach a Christ who is a failure than to admit that He gathers whom He will whenever He so pleases. David answers such objectors in few words: “Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power...(Psalm 110.3a).” Paul tells us, “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him (Ephesians 1.10).” If anyone is not gathered, whether in heaven or on earth, it is because they are not in Christ, they never were, and they never shall be.
Revelation 22:17
“ And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”
I fail to see what problem “A” might have with this text. Simply put, this verse does nothing for the whosoever won’ts. For that matter, it does nothing against them, either. It has nothing whatsoever to do with those who will not come to Christ, and it says nothing about them. The whosoever won’ts are not under consideration at all. Might we not as reasonably introduce Saul’s lost jennies at this point? If not, then why would our correspondent introduce this verse here as a supposed proof that man has a free will?
John 5:40
“ And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”
Again, why would “A” introduce this verse where Christ, in a dozen simple, grade-school words, proves the depravity of man’s will as powerfully as it has ever been set forth? Yet, “A” brings it up as a supposed proof that man has a free will?
"I have no problem seeing predestanation [sic] in scripture, but neither do I negate free will from the scripture, because I can’t. Maybe you can at the exclusion of some scripture. Please explain the following which is only a few Matt. 23:37 “ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Rev. 22:17 “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.”
John 5:40 “ And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”2 Peter 3:9 “......not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”
If God has chosen to save only a few, as your doctrine declares, then according to 2 Peter 3:9 God is going against his own will. Don’t give me presdestanation [sic] scripture to prove your case. I’m familiar with all of them.
Explain the scripture that seems to teach other wise. Then you will get my attention. Until then you won’t. And don’t misunderstand me. I’m very open to learning. But I’m very honest in comparing scripture with scripture, not just picking the ones I like. I’m neither Arm. or [sic] Cal. I see plenty of scripture on both sides. And I can see neither side with the ability to negate the other. At least if they’re honest in looking at all scripture. Thanks and feel free to write any time, A. "
REPLY
We have no idea who “A” is. We know little about him other than what may be gathered from his correspondence: He has no problem seeing predestination in Scripture, which puts him far above many who trade in the religious marketplace. He does not know how to spell predestination, but this could possibly be corrected, if he were sufficiently interested. He manifestly proves that he does not know what Primitive Baptists believe. He does not want us to give him predestination Scriptures to prove our case, as he is familiar with all of them, and satisfied to tell us so. He is worried about being misunderstood, he is very open to learning, and he says he is very honest, comparing Scripture with Scripture, not just picking the ones he likes. He is “neither Arm. or Cal.,” by which we suppose he means he is “neither Arminian nor Calvinist.” Our consenting to use his terms (Arminian, Calvinist), would leave him to be either a Pelagian or an atheist, as there is practically nothing else he could be, in such general terms, in all of so-called Christendom.
We are flattered, I suppose, because the questions of such a man as “A,” so learned in the Scriptures, would be referred to us. We do not profess to be familiar with all the Scriptures on predestination as he does, because we would then have to be familiar with every verse in the Bible. All verses are Scriptures on predestination.
To get to the heart of the issue, the man’s problem seems to be that of multitudes who, with varying degrees of interest in religion, cannot figure out who is the stronger, God or man.
He brings up four Scriptures, all of which must be addressed if we are to have any hope, as he says, of getting his attention.
Matthew 23:37
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”
Here, “A” deserves much credit for his not misquoting this text as most Arminians do (not that he is an Arminian, which he has denied being. Isn’t it strange, though, how those who say they are neither Arminian nor Calvinist usually come down on the Arminian side of every issue?). Even the greatest Arminian radio and TV evangelists of our day usually say, “how often would I have gathered YOU together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Of course, Jesus did not say that, or even remotely imply it, as if He were trying to gather anyone who would not be gathered.
“A” has underlined Christ’s “would I have gathered” and “ye would not.” By his underlining, we are made to think he questions the relative strength of Jesus, who would have done something, and that of those whom He addressed, who would not. This supposed test of wills between Christ and the Pharisees, to whom the Lord is in effect speaking in Matthew 23.37, is not the real issue at all. It is neither a question of Christ’s making an attempt at gathering someone nor a question of whether man’s will has superior power over God’s. The emphasis of the text was that Christ would have gathered “thy children,” whoever these are; but the Pharisees resisted Him. To put it another way, Christ would gather those He calls “thy children,” who did not resist Him; He did not try to gather the Pharisees who did resist Him. This should be evident from the text itself to anyone who can read.
First, Christ was addressing the Pharisees in the temple at Jerusalem, who considered themselves to be the spiritual fathers of the Jews or Israelites. Hence, Jesus, only a few moments before, had told the multitude and His disciples (note this distinction Matthew makes), “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven (Matthew 23.1, 9).”
Second, Christ had already gathered these children in a spiritual way, as was manifested on the day of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. “And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. And when He was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee...And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased, and said unto Him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise (Matthew 21.9-16)?”
Time and space forbids our lingering here. Suffice it to say, if it were only a spiritual gathering of these children, it would not be complete. There must be a literal gathering of them as well. They must be gathered, and they were, on the day of Pentecost and following. For, we see
Third, Jesus Christ did, at His own appointed time, gather the children of Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and after, and He added them to the Jerusalem church. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls (Acts 2.41).” After that, as always, He gathered them exactly as He saw fit: “...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved (Acts 2.47b).” Later, it is recorded: “Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand (Acts 4.4).” In each case the Lord gathered whom He would in His own appointed time and way.
Jesus never had any problem with the wills of those whom He would gather. To illustrate the point, picture for a moment, if you will, several people: an abusive parent; his little children, helpless to do anything about the abuse they are under; and, say, a kind but determined officer who first approaches the parent to reason with him before taking the children into his protective custody. The officer is neither trying to gather the parent, nor are the children unwilling to go. Whether anyone cares for this inelegant and mediocre illustration or not, it matters not. The real point is, any person with common sense would understand exactly what this officer meant if he told the parent (which the Pharisees considered themselves to be, spiritual fathers, and as such they represented themselves to the multitudes), “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Only a stultified will-worshiper would be unable to discern what He said and what he meant.
And as Jesus was pleased to here represent Himself by the symbol of a mother hen (even as He represented Himself by the figure of a mother eagle in Deuteronomy 32.11), you will note that the chickens are HER chickens, and they did not belong to the father Pharisees.
Will-worshipers invariably try to present Christ as though He were trying here to gather the Pharisees, but that they would not let Him gather them; their wills prevailed over the will of Christ and His Father. Pelagians, Arminians, and their fellow-travelers had rather preach a Christ who is a failure than to admit that He gathers whom He will whenever He so pleases. David answers such objectors in few words: “Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power...(Psalm 110.3a).” Paul tells us, “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him (Ephesians 1.10).” If anyone is not gathered, whether in heaven or on earth, it is because they are not in Christ, they never were, and they never shall be.
Revelation 22:17
“ And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”
I fail to see what problem “A” might have with this text. Simply put, this verse does nothing for the whosoever won’ts. For that matter, it does nothing against them, either. It has nothing whatsoever to do with those who will not come to Christ, and it says nothing about them. The whosoever won’ts are not under consideration at all. Might we not as reasonably introduce Saul’s lost jennies at this point? If not, then why would our correspondent introduce this verse here as a supposed proof that man has a free will?
John 5:40
“ And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”
Again, why would “A” introduce this verse where Christ, in a dozen simple, grade-school words, proves the depravity of man’s will as powerfully as it has ever been set forth? Yet, “A” brings it up as a supposed proof that man has a free will?
