The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1888-04-21
The Temnessee discussion. IL.


just raised, did he believe they would
be forever tormented. DR.. Hanson de-
fed his opponent to say he hoped for
that event. He would be a moral mon
ster to express such hope, if he be-
lieved the resurrection of the unjust is
to endless torment. Again. Our Lords
view astonished his hearers, Matt. xxi.
SO. But resurrection to endless woe
was just what the Pharisees believed,
and such a doctrine would not have
astonished them. Only resurrection
astonished them. Had Mr.. Hall
stated his views to those Jews they
would have accepted them, for they
were identical with their own. And
these views held by the Jews were not
from the Old Testament, but were OBJ
tanned from tradition, and all such were
condemned by our Lord: Matt. xvi. g.
12;-and Paul's view of the resurrection
was oppugnant to the Jews: Acts xvii.
80, because, contrary to the Jewish view,
it was of all to holiness and happiness.
Beyond all resurrection is the final,
when, Rev. v. 10.
(3) The third argument in DR.. Han
sons first affirmative speech was God
is a universal Saviour, 1 Tim. iv. 10.
Paul was prosecuted suffered re-
proach," for his doctrine of universal
salvation. The Jews held a partial sal
walton, and had Paul only taught that
they would not have molested him.
He did not say that salvation is posi-
BILE to all, but is absolutely certain for
all, and, as all time is an eternal now
to God, whose being knows no success
sion of past and future, his plans to
him are already accomplished. The
certain future to him already sis" God
cannot be the Saviour of all men if any
are to be endlessly lost.
These three arguments were present
ed very fully, and occupied the hour.
Mr.. Hall replied by attempting to
| uCdlClOs DCSSCu tACh
not to peril their immortal souls. He
then misrepresented DIR. Hanson as
saying the Jews at the time of Christ
called He'll Gehenna-went back to the
primary question, and tried to get the
Rich man back into He'll, and COMPEL
ed his opponent to return to the former
question, or pass unnoticed his repeti-
ton of already refuted arguments.
Much Of his time was occupied by read
ing page after page of Halls scandalous
book, "Universalism Against ITSELF
and, without giving his authority, ex-
cept part of the time, saying Sin the
words of another" and attributed the
imaginary language his namesake puts
into the mouth of the other Halls man
of straw to DR.. Hanson, saying, "my
opponent says" words DR.. Hanson had
never uttered. The mouldy straw he
paraded had been all threshed out a
generation ago. Over and over again
he rehashed Consuming Fire." See
henna," forever and ever" "devil,' y
"damnation, !" etc., all which had already
been disposed of, and belonged to the
first-part of the question. He charged
his opponent with advancing uncon-
ditional salvation, when the very ex-
tract he read from "Prayer of Prayers
stated that mans will would voluntarily
cooperate with Gods; and made the
point that God is Vengeance and there
fore that his Consuming Fire" one of
hate, thus contradicting the central fact
of Christianity, "God is Love-"
His only attempted arguments against
DIR. Hanson's position were these. Gods
will, purpose, ETC., are not now done,
therefore they never will be. 1t was
shown that this logic proves too much,
for no one is perfectly happy now, no
one holy now, no one fully saved now,
and on such reasoning never will be.
The argument that proves too much,
proves nothing. Men are not equal to
angels now, therefore they never will
be. "God and Christ are just as strong
now as they ever will be-" and as all
are not saved now, they never will be.
1t is just as true of any as of all and
the argument proves that none will ever
be saved, or it proves nothing.
Among the many false issues he
raised, was to quote from Hanson's
"Cloud of Witnesses" the statement
of Hartley, who declares that Gods
will will force rebelling wills to obedi.
ence, to convict DR.. Hanson of advocat.
ing involuntary salvation, when he
again and again disclaimed the idea.
Hartley was quoted as Restorationist,
and his view Of the process of salvation
cut no figure in the extract.
Again and again Mr.. Hall assumed
the infnity of sin, and relied upon the
doctrine as the foundation of his dogma
OF course it had no relation to the prop
osition, and was only shrewd dodge
to keep out affirmative argument tt
prov that the Bible teaches universe
salvation, but on the third day DR.
Hanson replied to his assumption by
proving negative, thus: Sin is no
infinite.
l. If it were, God would be malevolent