3.  Hendriksen and others, being aware of the total failure of the argument from grammar to sustain their thesis, support still another theory, credited to A. Kuyper, St., which makes "faith" in this verse to mean "faith exercised by the sinner", "is not of yourselves but is God's gift." This, of course, is the prize winner, being, without doubt, the most unbelievable of all these false explanations. If allowed, it would make the New Testament say that people are saved by faith, but there is no need really for them to believe, since God Himself gives the faith He requires!  The human theories would then have to be revised to teach that people are saved by faith only; but people do not even have to believe, for God gives them faith!  This to be sure would remove all conditions without exception, making salvation of all men to depend utterly upon the action of God.  The conception that "faith" in this place means some kind of subjective (inward) faith exercised by a person must really be dear to its adherents who will subscribe to any theory as ridiculous, unscriptural and unbelievable as this.

In the final analysis, there is only one possible way of understanding "faith" as the subjective response of a person (in this particular passage), and that is, by referring to it as the invocation of individual free-will faith of the believer in Jesus Christ.  If this is done, then the availability of the gift of God and His marvelous "plan of salvation for all mankind",  would have the gravity of not contradicting any of the sacred Scriptures.  To this end, in all likelihood, the simple meaning here then is "the Christian plan of salvation," which results from a gift/grace/mercy of God to "all" mankind, is a plan which is not a result of any human contribution whatsoever.  See more on "faith of Christ" under Gal. 2:16, 20.

It must be noted, that with regards to Eph. 2:8 and its pronounced "faith", any theological arguments that suggests a faith other than the specific individual free-will faith of the believer, will force the unsuspecting reader into many erroneous false doctrines; i.e., "limited atonement, irresistible grace, predestination, unconditional eternal security," and a misguided host of others.  Moreover, these much debatable and questionable theologies, create a plethora of inevitable and irreconcilable Scriptural conflicts.  As such, the glaring fallacy of any arguments that suggests interpretations of Eph. 2:8-9 based solely on theological theories promoting Greek grammar only ignores the overwhelming gravity of cumulative Scriptural "CONTEXT", and denies the created God given free-will of man in relation to God's "plan of salvation".    

Not of works, that no man should glory ...
This does not refer solely to works of the Law of Moses, and nothing else; and is not based on any expression itself as one of a kind of proverb in Paul's writings during those long years of his struggles against Judaizing teachers.  It is simply outrageous that scholars will suggest verse (9) to mean that "God does not indeed reject every work of man in his pursuit and attempts of initial justification/salvation".  Apostle Paul sums up his argument on salvation by faith vs. works in Rom. 4:1-5 - God is not a debtor to any man!

Paul taught that salvation was indeed progressive.  He said "work out your own salvation" (Philippians 2:12), and he also praised the Thessalonians for their "work of faith" (1 Thessalonians 1:3).  However, this was subsequent to initial justification/salvation.  God only rejects "every work of man," when attempting to earn his own justification/salvation.  Likewise, at any time during the progressive salvation experience when one begins to reject the faith of the Cross for their salvation and look more and more towards their own individual works then they are attempting to force God to become a debtor - which will never work and ultimately end in disaster for that believer and any others who may follow them. 

That no man should glory ...
The intention of the Father here was to absolutely remove any motives of a want to be Christian from the possibility of earning by works, their mandatory inclusion into the faithful family of God - thereby providing a basis for human glorying in forcing God into obligatory debt.  God has concluded in Rom. 3:23 that "ALL" have sinned and come short of the glory of God. 

Faith ...
This is not faith in one's self, but in the crucified Saviour - no grounds for glorying here.

Repentance ...
This entails Godly sorrow for past sins committed, issuing in a reversal of the human will - no grounds for glorying.

Confession ...
This is a confession of one's sins and the acknowledgement that they are a sinner and in need of the saving grace of God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.  This is not a confession of how saved one is, or what wonders the Lord has done for one, but of faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God - no grounds for glorying here.

Baptism into Christ ...
In this act, which is the sinner's only in the sense that they are commanded to "have themselves baptized into the body of Christ," both spiritually and physically.  One is of faith and the other is the subsequent consequence of that applied faith.  In physical water, they are passive, silent, meek, helpless; with hands folded over a penitent heart, they permit their entire persons to be buried in a liquid baptismal grave, this action showing that they do not trust themself for salvation any more than they would trust a dead body, fit only to be buried to arise a new creature in Christ like as Jesus.  Those who are glorying in this generation are none other than those who are obeying the gospel in order to be saved, as the Scriptures teach.  However, on the other hand, there are those who are screaming to high heaven that they are being saved in a better way, by doing nothing except "believing" or "trusting," but have dead works/fruits and have not actually divorced themselves from the desires of the flesh and the things of the world.  They are glorying in being saved without truthfully "obeying the gospel"; and they are glorying against those whom they denounce and decry as "legalists" because they do render obedience to these primary commandments and strive to teach all people to do likewise.

Most true Christians are never gloried in rendering primary obedience to the gospel, or who for one moment believe such obedient actions on their part "earned" them salvation, or "placed God under obligations to them," or put themselves in a position of "deserving" or "meriting" eternal redemption.  The implied truth of Christians who believe that Christ meant what He said when He declared that, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" is merely an application of their love and faith in God's Word.  Since the groups who believe and practice obedience to the primary condition(s) of redemption most certainly attempt in error to attach additional constraints to "faith in Christ Jesus" as being the one and only precondition for justification.  Meanwhile, are believers then disqualified as Christians because they also obey the Lord's Word in the areas of subsequent initial justification of individual works?  God forbid - NO!  Therefore, no one must be ridiculed for accepting "obedience of faith" for it betrays the true allegiance and sonship/fellowship of them that manifest it, but they must equally not attempt to encumber God's simple plan of justification/salvation with ridiculous claims for mandatory works in conjunction with faith - else one is lost.  

Paul's great theme of God's righteousness was never far from his thoughts; and his letter, in its entirety, has that theme constantly in focus.  What he had just said of God's election of Jacob might have raised some question of God's rectitude; and, if the doctrine of election is what some falsely and incorrectly affirm it to be, it would indeed indicate God's lack of righteousness, thus making it necessary to reject all such views of that doctrine.  However, Jesus died to make a way of salvation for ALL mankind, "For God so loved the WORLD..."John: 3:16.  But there was another phase of the rectitude of God that Paul had in mind here, and that is the fact that God has mercy upon some, and not upon others.  Upon the uniformly wicked populations of earth, God has decided to show mercy to those who have accepted through obedient faith the mercy which is freely offered to all; but the salvation of those thus receiving God's grace does no injustice to the willfully wicked who never obey the truth and are therefore destined to be lost.  Paul explained why in the next verse.

This quotation is from Exodus 33:19, and it affirms the sovereign right of Almighty God to save whomsoever He will. No basis of any kind is there stated as an explanation of God's saving some and rejecting others (predestination); but any understanding whatever of God's dealings with his human children demands the assumption that there is a just, righteous and rational foundation for everything that God does.

Thus, the choosing of Jacob was an act of grace and was not influenced by the moral character of Jacob or the immorality of Esau.  Therefore, Esau was not discriminated against and therefore made to serve his brother through no fault of his own.  Moreover, it must be noted that Esau had so little respect for his God given birthright, that without hesitation he gladly traded that in which he despised to Jacob for a mere pot of soup...

That God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not depend upon anything in them is not completely correct... The choice depended solely on God's omnipotent, omniscient, righteous and gracious will.  Hence, God is no respecter of persons, Acts 10:34 and Rom. 2:11.

Contrary opinions to these stated, clearly go far beyond anything the Word of God says and should be rejected unless they can be proved.  Furthermore, there is abundant evidence in God's Word that it was something "in men" that entered into God's election of them.  For example, God elected Abraham, and why?  If God is to be understood as either rational or just, there had to be a reason why.  Human intelligence demands to know what it is; and the gracious and righteous God deigned to reveal to His human children just what the reason was, thus: And the Lord said, For I know him (Abraham) that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him (Genesis 18:19).

In this epic passage of God's Word, God stated his reasons for the choice of Abraham.  God categorically stated, that He knew that Abraham would command his posterity after him, that they would keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment, "that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him," the latter clause being a dogmatic affirmation that without the qualities God's omniscience foreknew in Abraham, the fulfillment of the promise would have been impossible.  Thus, they greatly err who fancy that it "was nothing in" Abraham that entered into God's election.  That there was indeed something "in" Abraham that formed the basis of God's just and righteous appointment should have been assumed, even without the statement of what it was; but such is the perversity of human thought that it is even denied AFTER the statement of it!

God declared that He knew him before he was ever born (Jeremiah 1:5). 

Going a bit further, this example of why God chose Abraham is clearly applicable to the rejection of Esau.  God saw in him a different "manner" of people from Abraham, making the fulfillment of the promise through Esau an utter impossibility; and that is something "in" Esau that resulted in God's rejection of him.  The insinuation that God "discriminated" against Esau capriciously is ridiculous and completely without merit.

To carry this postulate even further, in every case of election, there has to be an element in the elected that distinguishes him from those not elected; and to deny this is to make election to be a totally immoral and capricious thing, unworthy even of people, much less of God.  Nor can such a certainty as this bear the slightest resemblance to any theory of anyone's ever meriting salvation.  Even when the election occurs, at least partially upon the basis of what is "in" the elected distinguishing them from the non-elected, the election is still without the merit of the elected and founded in God's love and grace, but not upon "grace alone," the proof of this being that God's grace has come alike upon the totality of mankind (Titus 3:11), which includes the non-elected.  Factors others than grace are therefore involved in election.  How could a so-called election, based on grace alone, discriminate between the elected and the non-elected, if no other factor was involved? 

Paul's words were still being directed at the Jews, primarily. Supposing that they were entitled to salvation, that God owed it to them, the nation as a whole, and the Pharisees as conspicuous examples of it, were wallowing in an arrogant self-righteousness that Paul struck down in the considerations brought forward here.  No man merits salvation.  In the last analysis, it is the gracious outflowing of God's loving grace and mercy that makes salvation possible for any person whomsoever.  This is the conclusion Paul drew from the quotation from Exodus, and the only conclusion.

Godet understood this verse thus: When God gives, it is not because a human will ("he that willeth") or a human work ("he that runneth") lays Him under obligation, and forces Him to give, in order not to be unjust by refusing. It is in Himself that the initiative and the efficacy are ("Him that calleth") - it is from Him that the gift flows.

The quotation from Exodus 33:19 given in the preceding verse and made the basis of the conclusion stated here, relates to a request by Moses that God would show him His glory.  God did so, not because He would have been unjust in refusing, but upon the basis stated in that verse of being free to show mercy upon whomsoever He would.  Thus Moses received the partial glimpse of divine glory, not through merit, but from God's gracious compliance with his request.  Note, however, that the Scriptures do not say that God's compliance had nothing to do with Moses' request, or with his life and character, or with his service as the great lawgiver; nor can it be believed that "nothing in" Moses was considered by God in granting him a glimpse of the glory.  Certainly, the REQUEST was considered, and that was something in Moses; and, therefore, all that is taught here is that Moses' great life and character, noble and outstanding as they were, could not have earned such a boon as that which God freely gave, nor could such admirable qualities in Moses have made it wrong for God to have denied his plea either.

The most careful attention should here be directed to what is not said by Paul in this appeal to Exodus 9:16.  God did not say to Pharaoh that he had raised him up in order to destroy him, or to drown his army in the Red Sea, but that God had raised him up for the purpose of showing His power in Pharaoh and of having God's name published throughout the earth.  Just HOW God's purpose would be fulfilled in Pharaoh, at the time God spoke, still remained within the circumference of Pharaoh's free-will to choose, whether by his own submission to God's commands or by his rebellion against them, would be realized God's purpose.  If Pharaoh had submitted to God's will, God's name would have been magnified all over the world and His power would have been demonstrated in Pharaoh just as gloriously in that manner as it was in the manner of its actual occurrence.  Pharaoh had the free choice of obeying or not obeying God; but God had purposed, either way, to use him as a demonstration of His power and a means of publishing His divine name all over the world; but the choice of HOW this would come about remained with Pharaoh until he was HARDENED.

What happened to the king of Nineveh, following the preaching of Jonah, should be remembered in the connection here.  Both Pharaoh and the ruler of Nineveh heard the Word of God, the one by Moses, the other by Jonah.  Nineveh received mercy; Egypt did not.  God had a perfect right to spare one and punish the other; but it is a falsehood to allege that God's doing so was capricious and unrelated to what was in the two monarchs or to their response to God's Word.  It definitely was related to their response.  Pharaoh rejected God's Word repeatedly, whereas on the other hand the monarch of Nineveh, called his whole nation to sackcloth and ashes, leading the way in penitence himself, with all of his royal court.  A mere glance at the two monarchs reveals why one was spared, the other not.  And note too that even in the case of Nineveh, it was even there a matter of God's grace; for God owed absolutely nothing to either monarch, either to the one who hardened his heart or to the one that repented - hence the propriety of Paul's remark that God had mercy upon whom He would, and whom He would He hardened.

Just as with clay and wax under the same heat of the same sun - the one will melt while the other will harden.  Thus, goes the history of ALL mankind...

But there was a dark and threatening shadow of doom for Israel in Paul's introduction of the case of Pharaoh whose repeated triflings with God's Word had resulted, at last, in God's judicial hardening of the evil monarch's heart (after Pharaoh himself had hardened it ten times!).  This was exactly what God had done to Israel, and the awful knowledge of it was almost breaking Paul's heart.  The thrust of that terrible word "hardened" at the end of Rom. 9:18 was pointed squarely at Israel; and Paul would announce it formally in Rom. 11:25, but here it was only mentioned.  Before the dreadful truth would be thundered in the oracle of the eleventh chapter, Paul would continue to build the logical foundations leading up to it; and it cannot be doubted that herein lies the purpose of bringing Pharaoh into these verses.  

Man has no right to arraign God in his thoughts and to charge Him with unrighteousness and dispute His absolute sovereign decisions. Even if, by the feeble lamp of human knowledge, no adequate reason appears as to "why" God did certain things, the creature is in no sense a judge of his Creator. The most fundamental of all considerations relative to God is that God is absolutely righteous, holy, and good; and that, whatever of His decisions may appear to people as otherwise, the fact of their righteousness and justice remains unimpaired.  It was a part of the honor of Abraham that he had such a conviction of God's righteousness.  In that patriarch's great intercessory prayer for Sodom, he prayed, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25).  Abraham's prayer was founded in the deepest of inner convictions that God is absolute in His good and righteousness.

Jesus Himself expounded this same principle in the parable of the talents, wherein the one-talent man viewed God (his lord in the parable) as "a hard man" (Matthew 25:24). God's response to that accusation was the expulsion of the wicked and slothful servant.  In the same manner here, Paul did not argue the point but cited the wickedness of the heart which will raise such a question, such a questioner being clearly one who interposes his own will as antithetical to that of God, vainly supposing that finite intelligence is capable of judging the actions of God his maker.  The evil judgment uttered by the one-talent man in the parable was the child of his own wicked heart and not due to any wrong doing on the part of his Lord.  Paul taught here that any allegation to the effect that God would condemn a sinner that God had specifically hardened Himself can originate in none other than a wicked heart.

Even Jesus boldly declared that there are none "GOOD" except God Himself... (Matt: 19:17; Mk. 10:18 and Lk. 18:19).

Paul taught here that man has no more right to question God than a pot has to criticize the potter; but here is exactly where the problem lies.  Man is not a pot, and he does diligently strive to understand the workings of the divine government; and it is precisely because of such human strivings that works like Romans were provided by the Spirit of God.  God's mercy is extended to man, even in this, that his desire to know is honored through the sacred revelations of God's will.

The bearing of this analogy on the Jewish question, still in the forefront of Paul's thought, was stated by Godet, thus: The lump represents the whole of humanity .... Let not Israel therefore say to God, "Thou hast no right to make of me anything else than a vessel of honor; and thou hast no right to make of that other body, the Gentiles, anything else than a base vessel."  It belongs to God himself to decide, according to his wisdom.

Therefore, in the infinite wisdom of God He has conclude ALL mankind in unbelief that He may have mercy upon ALL... (Rom. 11:32).

The figure of the two kinds of vessels, honorable and dishonorable, made from the same lump is most instructive and was extended by Paul in his letter to Timothy (2 Timothy 2:20-21). Paul's instruction from the same figure there reveals that caprice is not the determining factor in selecting which vessels are to be honorable; because Paul granted to those who will "purge themselves of wickedness" the precious promise that they should be made into vessels of honor, suitable for the Master's use.

The hardening of Israel and God's rejection of that nation from having any further place as a favored portion of humanity is the great announcement Paul was leading up to, as noted by Locke, thus: By "the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" (mentioned in Romans 9:22) he manifestly means the nation of the Jews, who were now grown ripe, and fit for the destruction He was bringing upon them.  And by "vessels of mercy" he means the Christian Church gathered out of a small collection of convert Jews, and the rest made up of Gentiles, who were together from thenceforward to be the people of God in the room of the Jewish nation, now cast off in part (not in complete absolute), as apparent in Rom. 9:24. & Rom. 11:25. 

Thus, Paul's use of the analogy of honorable and dishonorable vessels from the same lump is a parallel argument and supplemental to the judgment of Pharaoh, both being applicable to the hardening of Israel, already a fact, and the subject throughout this whole section of Romans.  Locke applied the example of Pharaoh to Israel, thus: How darest thou, O man, to call God to account, and question His justice, in casting off His ancient people, the Jews?  What if God, willing to punish that sinful people, and do it so as to have His power known and taken notice of, in the doing of it: (for why may not God raise them to that purpose, as well as He did Pharaoh and the Egyptians?)  What, I say, if God bore with them a long time, as He did with Pharaoh, that His hand might be the more eminently visible in their destruction; and that also, at the same time, He might with the more glory, make known His goodness and mercy to the Gentiles.  

The sense of these words is clearly presented in Locke's paraphrase, above.

Much longsuffering ...
God's almost endless patience with the repeated rebellions and departures of the chosen people is the burden of the Old Testament and the theme of many a prophetic message.  In a sense, God showed His immutable patience by the promise of the Messiah's revelation through the seed of Abraham, which holy intention necessitated the preservation of the covenant people (seemingly regardless of what they did) until the Messiah should at last appear.  Even though, at one point God told Moses He had had enough of the faithless arrogant sinfulness of the Hebrew children and He was actually about to destroy them all but for the intervention of Moses himself...

The Jews had absolutely no doubt whatever of the validity of the promise of the Messiah; and their leaders were accustomed to stabilize the people and allay their fears and apprehensions in the presence of any threatened calamity by saying, "The Messiah has not come, so we are safe!"  They also extended this confidence to a state of presumption in regard to their sins.  God judicially hardened the ten northern tribes and cast four-fifths of the whole Jewish nation into the ash can of history; but not even that quelled the overconfidence and self-righteousness in which Israel continued stubbornly in a course of sin against God.  But the Messiah had indeed come at last; and, upon Israel's stubborn insistent rejection and murder of the Anointed One, no further reason existed for their perpetuation.  God hardened them, as indeed they were already hardened for generations; and Paul was warning them in this letter that their doom was as certain as that of Pharaoh.  In all revealed instances of God's hardening, as in the case of Pharaoh (and now Israel), total destruction was the immediate and summary result.  True, Israel was to be destroyed also, even their capital razed and burned, but there was to be a startling difference.  That difference is the great mystery announced in Rom. 11:25.

Fitted for destruction ...
Israel rejected Moses, their great deliverer, murmured against him, despised the manna, fainted in the wilderness, cried for a king like the nations around them, went a whoring after the gods of the Canaanites, slew God's prophets, despised his mercies, and at last slew the King Himself when He came.  Such a nation had long been ripe for destruction; but, as noted above, God was, in a sense, "suffered with them" until Jesus came.  The extent of Israel's deserving God's rejection is implicit in the fact that the prophet Jeremiah categorically stated that they were worse than Sodom and worse than the ten northern tribes.  Thus, there was absolutely nothing unjust on God's part in His rejection of Israel and the calling of all people (including Israel, of course) in Christ.

Rom. 9:24 concludes the long question that began back in Rom. 9:22 with the words "What if ..." The import of this long interrogation is "Who should think it extraordinary, or something to wonder about, that God would at last reject that nation which had so long been rejecting Him?"  Paul at this point proceeded to show, by the quotation of a number of prophecies, that just these very things, the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of Israel had been exactly foretold by God's holy anointed prophets.

The verse quoted here is from Hosea 2:23 and can be understood in no other way except as a promise that Gentiles will finally become God's people.

The invisible things of Him ...
This a reference to God's everlasting power and divinity; and Paul's argument is that invisible things may be "seen" by the mind.  The things that are made, namely, all created objects, are the things which enable the mind to comprehend what no natural eye can see, that is, the power and divinity of God Himself.  This becomes, therefore, an impressive reference to the teleological demonstration of God's existence.  The very fact of something's having been made is certain proof of there having been a intelligent maker/designer.  It has grown fashionable in some quarters to ridicule the teleological argument for the existence of God, but the inspired authors did not hesitate to use it.  "For every house is builded by someone; but He that built all things is God" (Hebrews 3:4), is an example of it; and Paul's appeal to this argument in this context indicated his utmost confidence in it.  The passing centuries have confirmed its logical appeal.  One of the great scientific minds of the current century, Dr. Andrew Conway Ivy, wrote: I have never found a person who when urged could not give a reason why he or she believed in God.  The reason has always been to the effect that `Someone had to make the world and universe and the constraining laws that run them," or "There cannot be a machine without a maker."  That basic truth is understood by every normal child and adult.  Nothing cannot create eveything!  

Dr. Ivy developed his thoughts along this line at length and concluded that faith in God could never be destroyed from the earth as long as children are being born into it; for, he continued: The basic principles of unsophisticated and rational thought and belief will always rise again with the birth of every child. ... So compelling is the natural law of the relation of cause and effect that the developing mind of the three to five-year-old child realizes that there must indeed be a Creator.

That they may be without excuse ...
There is no doubt that Paul held the wicked ancient Gentiles to be inexcusable on any grounds whatsoever, and particularly he refuted in this passage any possible allegation that they might have been excused on grounds of ignorance.  The thrust of these words suggests that there might have been in Rome, when Paul wrote, some of the same type of apologists for gross sinners who, in every age, like to blame economic conditions, or politics, or society, for any crime, no matter how revolting, but never blame the perpetrator.  

Those who find in this an irresistible and sovereign act of God in calling individual sinners find much more than is in it, for the very next verse tells exactly how the drawing is accomplished: "They shall all be taught of God."  To suppose that God draws some and not others (predestination, irresistible grace, etc.) would be to suppose that God is partial and unjust (Acts 10:34).  The murmurers in this passage had rejected the teaching of God relative to the lowliness of the Messiah, thus thwarting God's drawing of them unto Himself.  The fact of rejection by some does not nullify the promise; the ones who respond will still be raised up at the last day.

The prophets ...
This calls to mind Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:31-35; but Jesus' Words here seem more reasonably construed as a reference to the general teaching of the Old Testament that in the days of the New Covenant men shall receive teaching from God. 

Those who heed God's Word, come to Jesus, being in such a manner drawn to Him, and drawn of God.  All human theories of immutable decrees, effectual calling, eternal election, and irresistible drawing, as applied to some men and not to others, appear to be vain and hurtful speculations without foundation either in reason or the sacred text.  If God does not draw men by His Word, how is it done?  Is not the Word a sufficient instrument?  Was it not the Word that hurled the suns in space, and lifted up the Cross, and stilled the sea?  Why should some other means of drawing be imagined?  The divine Word is more than enough.  Also, in the book of Acts, not a single record exists in the history of apostolic preaching/teaching in which even one person was converted who had not first heard the Word of God; and it is therefore concluded that all who are converted are converted by the Word of God.

Therefore, if we are saved by grace through faith, and it is "OUR personal faith" as I have argued here, then, "faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".

Therefore, it is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God, places in the hands of men the power of their own free-will to accept or reject the healing and saving gospel of Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour .

The final preponderance is this, despite such views, John himself taught that those who "believe on His name" through the hearing of God's Word, are given the "power to become the "adopted" children of God" (John 1:12).  The theory which stipulates that one who has heard God's Word, consequently believing on Jesus Christ, does not thereby have the right to become a child of God until some mysterious further action on the part of God himself in "drawing" the sinner is repugnant; because, in the final analysis, it makes God and not the sinner responsible for whether or not he accepts the Lord.  God has already given His Word to men, to the whole creation; and therein is also the power for all who choose to do so to become God's children.  As Lipscomb said: The gospel is the power of God unto salvation.  It is through the Spirit the drawing power.  It draws by its manifestation of the love of God, by its revelation of the crucified Saviour.  If man's will consents, and he yields to the drawing power, he comes; but, if he will not, and refuses to be drawn, he does not come.  God will not force him.  Hence, it is NOT God's will that any should perish but all are invited into the family by the saving grace of God.