The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1864-04-15

bsnht proposed to tie world in the "tre'
gift" is offered upon conditions, the full
tillment Of which is optional with the re-
sponsible agent. Hence, "He that be
lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life.
: "He that beleveth not the Son, shall no
see life, but the wrath of God abideth OF
him." Now all you have to do in maintain
. ing your proposition, is to provo that al
will finally believe; but it is not the par
ofan honorable disputant to mount gen
eric passage, descriptive of provisional
grace which all allow to be universal, ant
I ride over specific texts in which the con
ditions are laid down upon which alone
the benefit can be received
1t is emphatically declared, Mark 3
80, that blssphemy against the Hol,
Ghost is objectionable. No matter wha
the sin is,or how few or many there be tha
are guilty of it, so far as the argument il
concerned. If there be one that commits
it, the language is explicit. "He hatl
never forgiveness, but is in danger of eter
nal damnstion." One of three thing.
must be shown, to remove this argument
l. That nohe have ever committed it; OF
2. That it may be pardoned; or 3. That
the perpetrator can be holy and happy
without forgiveness. | do not recognize
DR.. Clark as authority in this controver.
sy. DO the Scriptures teach is tie ques,
ton? One might think you and Dr.
CLARK were special friends, from your
frequent quotations; but DR.. Clark had
no idea of keeping your company.
Several passages you have not attemp-
ted to answer. ......
l now pass to consider what you
are pleased to call the "turning point Of
this debate," viz: The Of ability God to
save all men. You ask if I shrink from
meeting it. By no means. as l trust will
be abundantly evident before this discus.
sion closes. You call upon me to "admit
or deny" | hold, as was claimed in my
last, that God is able to save all men with
their consent, but not one without, Or
against his will The question turns up
on human freedom. You profess to ad
nit human freedom We shall see. You
say 81 maintain that man is free, free to
choose, free to do, free in this world, and
free forever" Very well, thus far we
are agreed; but we have not reached the
issue. A few questions will develop it,
Let there be no wavering. !. Is he "free
to choose" contrary to the pleasure Of
God? 9. Is he free t, do contrary to the
pleasure of God? 3. Will he be forever free
to choose and do contrary to the Divine
pleasure? A. Has man, or has he not, ev
er chosen,or done contrary to the Divine
pleasure? Our whole controversy is con.
centrated here. Let theirs be no Whit.
fling about at this point; and let the read
erjudge. I claim he is free in the above
named respects. and is responsible for his
choices and conduct. wait your reply.
You ask "a plain yea or nay" to the
following question, "Granting moral free
dom, is the final holiness, and happiness
of oil men, then, possibility with God ?"I
| answer yes, If all men in The exercise ofI
their freedom repent and believe, but it man
in tho erercises of his freedom refuses 10
repent and believe, answer no: as plain
al answer as can give.
You say, "If God cannot secure the
final holiness and happiness Of all mer--I
moral freedom grandfather He cannot
OF course secure the salvation of any man,
for moral agency must be the some in all
men," Your sophistry lies in one of two
suppositiou. |. That mans salvation
depends upon moral agency rather than
the use of it, or. 2. That all men will
use their agency alike. Neither of which
is true.
Again, you say, "lf He cannot guide
and direct moral beings so as to make
them harmonize with his plan, it is idle
to say He does or can govern the moral
world" This depends upon the import
OF the term govern" If to govern moral
agents means to "make" them do Just
what He chooses and nothing else; it isl
true. This however would rob them Of
moral agency. But if to govern mean.
to put him under law, and make him re-
sponsibe for his conduct so that as a
being capable Of alternative choice, he