The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1864-03-25
MIR. WEBSTER TO MIR. NYE,
LETTER II.

| LIE 1 EN- IL.
DEAR SrR:-You still seem DISPOSED
to evade certain subordinate issues clear
ly involved In your proposition. Ihope
however you will not set up the claim
that they properly belong to the last prop.
osition. l am surprised that you should
indicate, that l had called upon you to
harmonic" my doctrine Of forgivnes.
with the quotation "rsnder to every man
according to his deeds" There is not
the least discrepancy between them, for
dispensing pardon onthe grounds OF rspen-
tence, and faith, is one way OF "render.
ing to men according to their dee.is." |
called upon YOU to reconcile your doclrin
OF the "adeqaas Punishment Of epery SIR
which you SAY Universalsm aifirms-with
the scripture doctrine Of forgiveness; as
forgiveness implies the remission Of the
penalty.
You undertake to dispose of the question
Of conditions by saying, Dan end ioreseen
and revealed must be absolutely sure, no
matter what conditions are Involved I"
But that the "snd" you contemplate is
either fo:eseen or revealed, ! deny. Sal
vation is gratuitously offered to all upon
conditions, the fultillment of which is op.
tional with the responsible agent and Of
zen not fulfilled Hence it is said, "ye
will not come to me that " nigh! have
life"
There is very good reason for my not
committing myself on the question Of re
suits viz it is the substance of my pro.
position. see no "obscurty" of which
you need complain, for want of fuller
definition OF the destruction OF evil doers.
1t is enough for you to know that it does
not signify reformation. 1t is plain
matter of fact in the moral world, in con-
futa.ion Of your argument. Nor does it
devolve upon me to show what becomes
Of them hereafter, il dertruction is the last
We know Of them in this world, it devolves
Upon you to show that they are reform,
ID in the future,
In reference TO your questions. "Will
God affect what he has undertaken ?"
will Christ reconcile the world to God,
kc. 2" You say, 'instead Of looking
teadly at these FACTS, remarkable
'Acrs I'll indulge my fancy. "=is it so
With such inquiries as these. could God
ave prevented sin &? Has He more power
o subdue than to prevent ? Will He be
ome stronger or His enemies weaker
think they might be expected from
n atheist or freetLinker /; but i'll. grace
christian minister" .-
Such reflections as the above have an
pology, in that it is less dfiicul for you
o make them, than to furnish answers
0 the questions. The answers TO my
Iuestions will satisfactorily dispose of
ours, for example YOU ask, 'cau God
bolish sin and in reply. l ask. could
Ie have prevented sin ? Now is it not as
robable that he would preoem sin,as that
10 should abolish it? That he did not
rsuem it absolutely is u fact hence that
e will abaiish it absolutely.is improbable.
ie could have absolutely prevented sin
]. BY not creating man e. BY
reating being in mans stead that could
ot sin, but in SO doing He would have
reated being incapable Of virtue--not
MAN. But he did not. s.. we may
oppose God might absolutely abolish sin;
J. By anihilatihg the sinner, or By.
lnma ming him, i. e; BY depriv'ng him
4 his responsible agency but WILL :
IE DoIT?
The question arises, could God have
sin. by morui means | au-
wer, he could, and did. And, how
II THE INrzRIrIvE IKJUNcTioYs AND PRO-